UPDATE:
Let me rephrase, based on some of the comments:
Sure all journalism is biased. Let me rephrase:
is this obnoxiously biased to the point that most rational folks would be offended to get such an email?
Or is this just biz as usual (altho I've never gotten such slanted questions before)...
END UPDATE
+++++++++++++
Here is the email in question:
+++++++++
David,
I'm working on a story for MSNBC examining the life-to-date chronology of the PS3. As a respected PlayStation developer, would you be willing to answer a few questions? In the interest you are, here goes:
In hindsight, noting the PS3's lukewarm reception and relatively high cost, a lot of people wonder what Sony was thinking when developing the PS3. So... what were they thinking?
It's been said that Ken Kutaragi and Howard Stinger dictated what technology the PS3 should include instead of doing proper research to what the consumer wanted while paying little mind to price. As a development partner, did you feel that was the case? Why/why not?
It seems that releasing a feature-rich console for $600, now $400, was a crippling move for Sony, especially given the recent economic downturn. Would you agree? Why/why not?
Did you ever perceive low morale within the company once the $600 price was announced in 2006? Can you elaborate?
Consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology. Do you feel Sony overvalued Blu-ray, after DVD helped the PS2 become such a huge success?
It seems the PS3 has been cobbled together since its release: feature-cutting to help cut costs, patched with controller rumble, patched with Home, patched with trophy achievements -- like the console never had a specific plan. During your tenure, did you feel the powers that be at Sony had a grip on what exactly would make the PS3 a success? Why/why not?
What has been your biggest concern as a PS3 developer?
Was the Wall Street Journal right: has hope faded for PS3 as the "comeback player"?
Kindly,
Mystery Journalist
So you tell me...am I just being ultra sensitive? If so, I apologize to the journalist in question. To be fair to him, he says he's looking at the PS life to date (and not focusing on upcoming things that could swing the console's fortunes ((ala KILLZONE 2, GOW 3, UNCHARTED 2, MLB 09, potential price drop,etc)) )....BUT even so, he seems to ignore ANY of the success it has had up till this point or any of the missteps the 360 has made...but again, I could be wrong...
Take it easy ya'll-
David
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
175 comments:
They're biased questions, definitely. However, it does generally look like a bunch of questions, as opposed to an actual interview or whatever.
Odds are, the positives are already known about by this mystery journalist, and, like all journalists, it's the negative that's most appealing.
Anyway, I'd answer them, but I'd also point out positives, not calling him out or anything, just adding to the answer and stuff.
But that's me. You might have done/will do something different.
All journalism is biased or has some kind of angle. Unbiased journalism is as much a fantasy as "Lord of the Rings."
Its biased. The way the questions are asked are meant to elicit a specific response.
Are you Dave really surprised by this bias?
It has been around since day one of PS3 launch, even before that. For what ever reason media, most of the site would like to see PS3 fail, that's just the way it is. If you listen to podcasts or read the way reviews are written it is very obvious.
For example compare Gametrailers review of Halo 3 vs KZ2. Sure both games got great scores, but 10 minute long Halo 3 review is so lame, they were selling to viewrs that game through whole review. In the end saying something like "Go look into your car, under your bad, find money any way you can and go buy this game". It is so lame and unproffesional.
PS3 is AMAZING machine, i don't need to tell this to you. You know that better than i do. So far with that high price it menaged to sell 21 million units, how is that bad?
PS3 had more exclusives last year. This year it has even more, with GOW3 or not.
UNCHARTED 2, HEavy RAIN, Killzone2, new Ratchet(we know it is coming), Infamous, MAG etc + unannounced games. I mean come on.
This kind of thing is why I don't own a 360 (aside from the fact that they failed to get the RROD problem under control). The hardcore 360 fans take any chance possible to shit on the PS3, without even acknowledging the positives. Everywhere I go it's:
"I'm not paying for an expensive system with NO games"
The "No Games" excuse pisses me off to no end. I always tend to respond with "Well I may not have alot of games, but at least my system works for more than a month".
That may sound a little fanboyish on my end, but still.
Since Dave made update.
Yes i think this guy has only one intention.
To write more BS about PS3 and to potentially use you name to say "See even this great developers thinks so".
I don't know if MS pays this people or not. Maybe because Sony is Japanese company, i really don't know why so much dislike.
Don't bother to replay to him and yes you are right, glad to made this video.
David,
It definitely is biased journalism, no question. It's from a Microsoft guy and it's only asking you about negative instances within Sony. Clearly his article, or at least the portion of which he's asked your help with, is slanted towards bashing Sony and the PS3.
I agree with your stance of not responding to his article. Even if you were to preface your answers, or supply addition commentary, with positives about Sony/PS3 they probably wouldn't be published. Your answers would be either taken out of context, or the positives about Sony/PS3 would simply be omitted.
Even if said journalist were to get back with you regarding these slanted questions, I wouldn't answer them due to the potential of your answers being misconstrued, misquoted, or altogether omitted.
P.S., I can't wait for some of the awesome titles that will soon be released for the PS3!!!
~PAYBACK-joker
ps3 is going to win in the long run, i cant understand why people are so dumb that they cant see it. the processing elements in the 360 and ps3 are totally different. Microsoft is going to change their architecture on their next console ( coming in abt 10 years) and go through the "oh its hard to code phase" which the ps3 is going through right now. for those who still dont understand watch a movie in which ppl use the GPU for calculation compared to the CPU. thats the difference b/w the ps3 and the 360. parallel processing will definitely prevail.
Looks like I went into rant mode there >_>. Anyway, journalism isn't really something to worry about. Most of the time it's some fanboy of one of the three systems talking out their ass.
I think Returners hit the nail on the head: "The way the questions are asked are meant to elicit a specific response."
They journalist may not be looking for you to agree. Could it be that the journalist emailed you an anti-PS3 email to hear your counter-arguments? He/She may have also emailed a pro-PS3 email to someone who appears to be more of an Xbox 360 fan? That way, the journalist could get rebuttals for both sides of the discussion.
Of course, all journalism is biased.
I would say they are a little biased :lol:
They are pointing out all of the negatives like the console has done nothing good. Every product goes through negatives, even the 360. Nothing is perfect, except the Wii, but that is a freak of machines. LOL.
Sorry for posting twice, but do you like developing for the PS3?? or is it really a pain in the ass? You may not answer this but I really want to know.
Those questions are slanted, and makes the interviewee to be defensive upfront.
It's absolutely biased. This isn't a "journalist" trying to get to the bottom of the story, it's a "fan-boy" trying to get more fuel for a fan-boy-based tirade.
Think of it this way. Imagine someone was not a fan of the hero-pilot who saved the lives of every passenger by landing in the water. The "interview" could go this way:
1) "Sully," as his friends called him, crash-landed in water. Do you think his pilot's license should be taken away from pilots who crash planes?
2) Would you have rather been on that flight that Mr. Sullenberger was piloting, or would you have rather been at home with your family?
3) If that pilot had sent Anthrax to your family, would you have wanted him to spend time in prison?
4) Do you think the airline tickets for the flight that Chesley piloted are over-priced? Would you have wanted to pay less for the ticket if you had been a passenger?
It's just complete crap. Sure, the PS3 hasn't solved world peace and hasn't fed the hungry. But this isn't what the product is for. It was designed to entertain and for many it has done just that. For others, it is over priced or does not have the features they are looking for. A normal person just shops around and finds what they want or need. An insane person complains about a product incessantly, declaring it the sole cause of 9/11, inflation, our national debt, etc...
If they are ignoring the "turn around, reversal of fortune" games, it's because they recognize that other systems are releasing their own games at the same time. It's not like one game is going to turn the tables and suddenly make the PS3 viable. The proof is in the LittleBigPudding. The other systems have a mountain of games that make them viable. You don't leap that in one superhuman bound.
Huh.
Well that's something you don't see every day, David.
Clearly a biased article. Journalism is mainly about objectivity and neutral responses to balance eachother out. That piece of garbage was simply aimed towards bringing the PS3, and Sony, down.
Sad, really.
I bet the "journalist" is Aaron Greenberg! D:
I guess I would have just responded with an slanted e-mail back. Only give him answers praising Sony...
For example, on the Blu Ray question, I'd talk about how BR has a better adoption rate than DVD did, how it was foolish for Microsoft to not have the foresight to include it.
It's MSNBC, do you expect anything but Bias from them? I mean comeon. MSNBC is like that sleeve in your portfolio where you set aside a small portion of money for your crazy investments.
That's what MSNBC is, where they let the crazies roam.
I read some of the comments, and I'm amazed how eager people are to call foul when it comes to negative PS3 press. If someone were to ask the same questions of Microsoft, people who hate either the 360 or Microsoft in general would call it "hard-hitting investigative reporting".
There is bias in the reporting of reporting, it seems. I say this is line of questioning is fair because the same audience collected in the comments here doesn't have the presence of mind to identify the problems with the questioning and separate it from the console war.
Defending Sony comes first; attacking Microsoft comes second; critical analysis comes third.
So why did YOU dave have to mention the 360 at the end of the article? the email didn't mention anything about the 360 or the wii, yet you had to bring up that small tidbit near the end.
maybe...cause...you're BIASED YOURSELF? which, in turn, would make you a hypocrite wouldn't it?
what's the difference between the guy sending you an email inquiring about a piece you don't know yet if it will be a negative piece, or you bringing up the 360 drawbacks comment in your blog, read by many people?
Are you sure it was a real journalist ? Not some fanboy who wanted to say on some forum "hey look, David Jaffe thinks the PS3 sucks"
Why did I mention the 360?!? Cause the guy writing the fucking article is getting paid BY MICROSOFT (who makes the 360)! Don't you think that's kind of , you know ,relevant?
Oh yeah, those are some biased questions, and it seems just like MSNBC to prod questions like that. I'm not saying that because they are a Microsoft associated company, I'm saying it because they do it no matter what the medium. But hey David, I'll do you a favor and answer those questions the best I can as a consumer, because if they are looking for feedback, maybe they should prod the public for answers, not the developers. Seems their biggest intention was to throw you for a spin and make you question your job. So fuck them, and here goes:
Q:In hindsight, noting the PS3's lukewarm reception and relatively high cost, a lot of people wonder what Sony was thinking when developing the PS3. So... what were they thinking?
A: They were thinking as a HARDWARE company does, and being as highly respected as Sony is a industry business and innovator, they were hoping to push the boundaries of gaming in to a newer, fresher realm of game development. It was a smart move, regardless of public view/acceptance, because it solidified them as an up-to-date hardware company, and insured their position in the industry for years to come.
Q: It's been said that Ken Kutaragi and Howard Stringer dictated what technology the PS3 should include instead of doing proper research to what the consumer wanted while paying little mind to price. As a development partner, did you feel that was the case? Why/why not?
A: Ok, so I'm not a development partner like the good man you did send this unruly bullshit to, but for the answer to this, see above answer as well.
Q: It seems that releasing a feature-rich console for $600, now $400, was a crippling move for Sony, especially given the recent economic downturn. Would you agree? Why/why not?
I would have to agree, but I wouldn't say the move is exactly 'crippling' because SCE is managing to stay afloat. People are still buying consoles moron, look at the numbers. Now, the big issue that you as a journalist and as a "employee" of MSNBC as well as many other people misunderstand a few of the basic principles of what has gone wrong for them that has left them in this position. Firstly being that their marketing for the system has been a disaster, and it leaves millions of potential consumers completely unaware of what they get out of the box. Most of the negative opinions of the system, and of Sony in general is all because of either word of mouth from the ignorant, or the lack of WOM from those who have one.
Q: Did you ever perceive low morale within the company once the $600 price was announced in 2006? Can you elaborate?
A; What the fuck?? Low morale? Is Sony a military? What the fuck kind of question is this? Does this have to do with Phil Harrison's departure from the company? I'm sorry, I don't work for Sony, but lately, it seems that their company is still working hard for their money, no matter what kind of future they predict for themselves. And I don't think that it would be as productive and forward thinking if they had "low morale". Go ask your mother about low morale, or go ask my sister's husband. In Iraq.
Q: Consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology. Do you feel Sony overvalued Blu-ray, after DVD helped the PS2 become such a huge success?
A: Fuck no consumers aren't indifferent over Blu-ray you moron, do your fuckin' research. It has a higher adoption rate than DVD originally did. God who wrote these questions for you? Steve Ballmer? Sure, putting BD tech into the PS3 was a gamble, but guess what? It's already proven to be a wise investment, because the adoption rates of discs/hardware is healthy, otherwise it would dropping off the map right now.
Q: It seems the PS3 has been cobbled together since its release: feature-cutting to help cut costs, patched with controller rumble, patched with Home, patched with trophy achievements -- like the console never had a specific plan. During your tenure, did you feel the powers that be at Sony had a grip on what exactly would make the PS3 a success? Why/why not?
A:No, because no one does. No one ever has an idea of how the market will shift or how they will respond to feature A or B. Microsoft is guilty of this as well. DivX playback? HDDVD? HDMI? THE FUCKING NXE?? Do you see where I'm going with this? It's redundant. Next question.
Q:What has been your biggest concern as a PS3 developer?
A: Once again, can't answer for my main man Jaffe, but what I can tell you is that you should be less concerned with the concerns of the development teams working on PS3 games, and more worried about your slanted journalism.
Q: Was the Wall Street Journal right: has hope faded for PS3 as the "comeback player"?
A: Fuck no, watch this year happen, and see the sales jump (it's a guarantee by the end of the year for their sales to skyrocket, new economic plans, new marketing, Killzone 2/GoWIII, etc) and then ask that question again. The PS3 may not come out on top at the end of this generation, but they don't need to, they just need to survive so your bosses, the blood sucking leeches at Microsoft, don't rule a form of monopoly over the gaming market. Now go and take your biased questions, and shove them. Thanks for your time. *middle finger*
so, in turn, you are just acting like a typical sony butturt fanboy who thinks everyone is talking behind their back or plotting against them.
so yes, you are overly sensitive. you're a developer for god's sake.
Look at the situation in the long view- the PS2 was a huge success. The most you can say about the PS3 right now is that it is the third largest selling console of this generation and the best *may yet* be to come.
Writing a story on how Sony went from first to last, in an economic situation like the one we are currently experiencing is not necessarily biased at all? A lot of the questions the journalist brought up were those same questions the enthusiast press has been asking since Sony announced the PS3. Again, not due to bias but because maybe, just maybe, they don't seem to be the wisest choices regarding the ps3 launch.
I am a PS3 owner, and I believe that Microsoft in many ways set Sony up to fail in this gen, but this line of inquiry is ultimately legitimate.
that journalist is a douchebag jaffski
Does chronology of the ps3 mean disaster of the ps3 ? I am going to look up what chronolgy means now. And how is someone supposed to answer "what were they thinking?"
Dude from MSNBC , what the fuck is this bullshit ?
Screw the critics, man. God of War III looks to be an amazing game, and I have no doubt it will be. PS3 also has the most amazing line up of games in 2009, while the 360 has, what, 2 more Halo games and $50 million digital wang? Pffffft.
Just keep doing what you're doing. PS3 isn't dead. I saw an interesting report on the month-to-month sales for each console in 2008. What was obvious in 2008 is that Sony was often matching, if not beating, the 360 in console sales each month in 2008 up until about October. And it's not until the huge price cut for the 360 that you see a massive spike in sales for the 360.
Also, what I find funny about everyone bragging about 360 sales is that honestly the PS3 isn't trailing by as much as it should be given the price differences.
To use random numbers as example (not real statistics), let's say the 360 sold 50,000 in one month while the PS3 sold 30,000.
Well, the cheapest model of the PS3 costs double what the cheapest 360 model costs ($400 and $200 respectively). So those 30,000 PS3s generated $12 million in gross revenue. Those 50,000 360s, however, only generated $10 million in gross revenue.
I know most people are well aware of this, but it's something to consider the next time someone goes on and on about how the 360 is selling so much better. And don't forget that Microsoft is still losing money by having to service 360s for RROD, E74, etc.
As a SONY employee people ask me similar questions.
My response is... the PS3 is a better console and I'm VERY happy with it, and I'm happy working for the SONY organization.
David, maybe that was 'their' plan to use You in their next pr campaign. Look, KZ2 is in week, so its really 'We or They' situation. Look at GAF , those people really didnt get it, I am shocked.
I think it's biased journalism because there's already been tons and tons of "PS3 is doomed" articles written (especially in 2007) and to me even MORE negative PS3 articles are just uncalled for.
And I think it was just ridiculous for that journalist to ask Jaffe to answer such questions because he's had great success with Sony and on the Playstation platform... it's like this journalist had an agenda to try and tear down the PS3 even more by getting one of it's own developers to talk down about it, because if they could get Jaffe to talk down about the PS3, then they could use that as evidence and say " Hey look, Even a PS3 developer thinks the system is a failure", and that's just LOW.
Anyways, I'm glad Jaffe is speaking out about this. Sometimes I wish that more developers were as verbal as Jaffe is on touchy subjects like this.
And Jaffe, NO, I don't think you were being ultra sensitive when you responded like this because it's RARE now-a-days that a journalist will focus on the positives on the PS3 and I'm really just sick and tired of all the PS3 negativity... it's like some of these "journalists" are trying their best to shoot down the PS3 before it even hits it's stride and I'm sick of it.
that journalist can shove it. he was probably taking it up the ass by bill gates :-P SONY FTW! TREY 4 LIFE!
@edgeofblade,
Before you judge people you don't know, give them the benefit of the doubt. There are also those who will simply bash things which are biased, whether they agree with the opinion of the bias or not.
There is a difference between an opinion piece... which everyone is entitled to... or an "interview" which is designed specifically to get answers in a slanted direction. One is just an opinion... another is just manipulative. It's the difference between calling a war unnecessary or calling soldiers baby-killers. While to you it may seem to be 6 of one and half a dozen of another, it requires a little bit more thinking-power to see the reality.
If someone claimed to be a journalist and asked questions like "Why does the 360 suck?" and "Should Microsoft stop making consoles which break after a year?" and did not include anything balancing like, "Do you think it was a smart move by Microsoft to release early and take the lead?" or "Do you think Microsoft was smart to keep the 360 out of the HD movie format wars?"... I'd dismiss that line of questioning as fan-boy laden just as much as the questionnaire David got.
That quality of journalism is equivalent to asking "hard-hitting questions" such as "Would you rather watch the such-and-such movie, or be punched in the throat?" The answers to such questions can be easily skewed to serve any agenda and the good name of the person being asked can be tarnished. It's amateur.
there is one word to explain it all......fanboy
you should give him the most smartass answers possible
Hi there
I'm Eugene. I live in Moscow, Russia so excuse my bad English.
Frankly speaking it is a pain in ass - i mean the modern journalism style. Since the recent time journalists have made their articles not what they are supposed to be, but a huge cruel and sometimes even illiterate battle field in this console war. The biggest negative factor for that is it is consumers who have to pay for their halftruth or biased opinion.
I don't want to blame all journalists in lies. All mainstream media is a business. I mean their purpose to make money for someone for a publisher or media magnat. It is normal. But a good jurnalist has to be a proffy if he likes to have a good reputation and become/be famous.
Unfrotunately the time when authors describe facts in their articles is almost over. Now it is time for dirty tricks and trading facts. A lot of tiny thigs are exaggerated to ennormous size while huge things passed unnoticed. It may happen because of personal preffers, biz or even a simple sence of patriotism. But the big client doesn't have this sense at all.
Faulty hardware were sold to customers all around the world for almost 2 years. After it was anounced about extending warranty. How sweet and honest. But who has to go an american soldier in Iraq to exchange his broken console he likes to play between his duties? Abullah? Or wait for couple of months before he will get a new one? Where is patriotism here? Or should Abdullah's son ask an american soldier to send a faulty console back to exchange?
It was just an example of how fun can become a pain. Maybe not so good, but I can see it so - outside of the US.
So I'm very glad for your smart and honest opinion. Honest answer for an initially dishonest question.
But you threw stones at a certain address so be ready - a lot of shit gonna fall to your head.
With all my respect
Gene
David your totally right, but I wish you would respond to the article. You should point out to MSNBC that SONY delivered an awesome product yet with the economy the way it is, its hard to sell a 399.99 system.
After carefully re-reading the email and taking it into context, i will admit it does seem somewhat in less than stellar favor to ask what seems mostly negative aspects of the ps3's current situation.
so David, how would YOU write an article about how Sony went from ruling for 2 generations to dead last? If Sony has good things coming, and ask players to be patient, can you say the same about competitors?
given, that after all, PS3 is still in 3rd, not selling at WII numbers like everyone and their grandmother expected (even you i bet) back in '05?
oh, and please drop the "i'm just a regular gamer, don't use me for this type of stuff" schtick. you're a game developer for one of the big three. your words have power. no matter what you want to say, what you say can and will be used in future reference. speaking your mind is admirable, but being smart about what you say is also admirable.
Was Resistance sent to die David Jaffe ?
What was Sony thinking David Jaffe ?
David, could this be fake??
Are you sure that actual journalist exists at MSNBC?
It's looks like a wind up to me.
It's definitely biased journalism, as all journalism is, but the guy definitely seemed to be out to get the PS3. Now, as you said, maybe that's not the case, but it sure does seem that way.
If it were me, I'd go ahead and answer them, but as Jack_Vykios said, I'd point out some of the strengths and victories of the system as well. If these positive points don't show up in the article, who the fuck cares? Anyone that's serious about spending 400 dollars on a game system will know the strengths and weaknesses anyway, I doubt the article will affect that. Also -- you yourself pointed out that the guy works for Microsoft. His/Her employers could've very easily mandated that he ask the questions posed in the email. Maybe that's just getting paranoid, but ya never know.
The fanyboyism thing works both way. I was reading comments on the new GOWIII trailer the other day, it was just littered with "Haha, take that 360 fanboys!" or, "Too bad we have ___ and you don't." etc. Although they usually didn't choose such kind vocabulary.
I'm glad you had fun at Disneyland. I've never been. :( Maybe one day.
I don't really know what to say besides that this crap happens all the time.
In hindsight, noting the PS3's lukewarm reception and relatively high cost, a lot of people wonder what Sony was thinking when developing the PS3. So... what were they thinking? XD this guy is reaching for something...a Sensationalism story.
First and foremost I'm a huge gamer. I own both systems too, and I'd have to say I prefer the 360 over the ps3 anyday of the week. I've had two 360's with the red ring of death ( a little modification here and there and its an easy fix.) and thats not enough to make me hate the 360. My Ps3 is cool, but most of the time it just collects dust. I'm not big on blu-ray..... I love the remote play feature that is waaay cool. I don't hate sony though my favorite system of all time is the Sony Ps2... now that was bad ass little machine with tons of awesome games. Either way I really hope Sony gets it right man. Is it me or when Ken Kutagari left the company its like know one knows what to do with the gaming devision.... then thats just me.... Love your blog by the way David. I think your fucking rock!! I just wish you'd still be working on God of War. But I understand why you wouldn't want that.... Hideo Kojima has been trying to leave metal gear for so long now.... takes alot out of you to make such a cool game huh? Anyways GOD bless!!
David,
Don't you mind if I translate the e-mail and your video answer into Russia.
It will be posted at http://test.psclan.ru
Thank you
Gene
Thumbs up to you david.
Holy shit there are some douche bags on GAF and anywhere really. The amount of utter ignorance and idiocy on subjects most of these tools have no idea about amazes me. You are the FUCKING MAN Jaffe, keep up the good work.
-Signed,
a fellow industry professional
fight the power jaffe.lol
assholes like these have turned gaming into a cesspool of biasness, manipulation and stupidity. i wish they all die and leave true gamers be.
Anonymous said...
" maybe...cause...you're BIASED YOURSELF? which, in turn, would make you a hypocrite wouldn't it?"
Dude, David is not a journalist. He can afford to be biased if he wants. On the other hand, a biased journalist just goes against his professional code of conduct.
The questions are baited but there is nothing untrue about what he's talking about.
Perhaps Eat Sleep Play should become a fully independent developer so they can release their games to a user base outside of Sony systems?
I think all you sony folks are very, very touchy about the subject.
nooo jaffe
dont drink the diet drrinks!
learn about the aspartame!
yea aspertame and high fructose corn syrup are unhealthy products
Leave it to a Microsoft fan-boy to point out that aspertame and high fructose corn syrup are evil.
(Hopefully, the joke in this can be seen.)
Sony=Pepsi
Microsoft=Coke
jaffe looks like a talking turd.
Hey Jaffe,
I just wanted to let you know that the guys attacking you at neogaf are the same guys that get orgasms over NPD and post gifs etc,some of them are also the guys that never touched a NPD thread during Q1 & Q2 of 2008,because oh well you know,bad news.
Just don't waste your time with them.
Oh,I'm a PC gamer and have no nextgen console-Just for the fuck of people that are going to start calling me a PS3 fanboy :)
I'm just here to speak the truth.
Have a nice day!
Mr. Jaffe, everything you did, in regards to this e-mail you got, was the very best decision made.
Any other way would have been less effective and potentially damaging to various degrees.
Sure, someone can call you names, laugh about it and then say "ha, come, it was just a joke" ... but your a grown arsed man. You know piss on your boots isn't fackin rain no matter if the whole world told you it was.
Sly evasion seems to be the new norm in our society. It's always been around through out the world sure but it seems to have gotten to an unconscious level now.
The other day I saw a piece on Anderson Coppers 360 segment on CNN (yes yes I watch CNN, dont' laugh) and he had talked about a cartoon skit depicting two police officers, one of which had just shot a monkey, and the other officer said something along the lines of "Well, who's going to write the stimulus bill now"
What got me was the following question by Mr. Copper - "Was this racist?" Unconscious purposefully Sly evasion, *sigh*
Lets not call obvious stuff what it is cause "they'll" scream "argh!! ur too sensitive and a seeming nutt job"
Fack it! call it as YOU see it and move on... but call it. That's how I'm dealing with this Sly evasion technique BS in today's society.
Biased for sure and the questions are very leading. He is obviously trying to elicit specific negative statements from you to back up his stance that the PS3 was a total and complete failure. Even if you were to give him all of the positives for the system the only quotes you will see in his article will be the ones trying to damage Sony and the PS3. I would not answer them, you more than anyone should know that your words will be twisted and used to bash Sony.
advid this is your chance! Respond to this guy and tell him how it is! explain sony's killer lineup and potential price drop. Show him how sales have been going up. Tell him!
He was probably just a little dull and didn't realise that what he was asking was being insensitive, and just rolling with the negativity which is so prevalent in the majority of coverage of the PS3.
Hah! Dave just owned the fuck out of that anonymous prick who has no common sense.
If this is MSNBC, the PS3 got off light!
If it was a republican console it would have been even worse. Olberman would be ranting about how the console destroyed gaming as we know it and was responsible for all the developers getting laid off. The questions you received were tame...
I,m with you david, tell him to Fuck Off, he/she is an ass, somebody from msnbc should be writting an article on the mass mass failure of the 360 and the fact Microsoft new about this before hand an still pushed the console out, No wonder Sony were a year behind, they obviosuly thought no way microsoft is ready to launch this early. oops sidetrack
David, I understand your feelings on this. I think there are a few things to keep in mind, some of which have been voiced here in comments.
First is that if he plans on detailing the successes (which I'd hope he would if his true intention is to give a time line of the PS3's life) he probably is well aware of them (and as some put it, the negative can be much more interesting, unfortunately).
Second, I don't understand why you'd expect him to mention the 360's failures in an email to you. Sure, he works for MS and they've certainly had their share of blunders, but I'd expect that kind of comparison in the article. He could compare PS3 defect rates to 360 and we could all have a hearty laugh.
He's looking for your insight to Sony failures, because the popular perception right now is that PS3 is at a distant 3rd place in hardware. No PS3 titles in the top 10 for recent NPDs. PS3 is down year over year. People are fixated on these things, and it looks bleak.
People are starting to think that 1st 2nd and 3rd place metals are ready to be awarded for this generation. You could argue this whole notion is childish, but that's what people are into discussing. No one knows what the future holds for PS3, and I don't think anyone with a legitimate opinion thinks PS3 is a failure (as in shutting down production, closing the games hardware division, etc). PS3 could come back to beat 360 in hardware numbers, but the general perception is that this would be an unlikely turn of events.
So from that perspective, he's interested in any insight you may have to the mistakes that landed PS3 in 3rd. Not mistakes that landed Sony out of business. Remember too that this is a riches to rags story, which is all too popular, especially in down economic times. PS2 flogged the competition, now PS3 finds itself struggling in 3rd place.
I think you're understandably sensitive to unchecked criticism of the Sony platform. The questions don't seem overly abusive (Why does PS3 continue to suck while 360 is so awesome?) You'll notice he doesn't disparage the quality of the hardware or the games, which is the real Mark of the Fanboy. It's all based on market performance, which is more or less hard numbers.
ALL that said, you probably did the right thing declining to respond. I don't think it would be very appropriate for you, as a Sony partner, to assist journalist in highlighting the negatives of Sony's flagship product. Knowing how your quotes tend to find themselves twisted and out of context, this is a no brainer (just imagine the MSNBC link: "Jaffe calls PS3 an 'utter failure'").
David,
These questions are not necessarily biased. I understand your trepidation since the questions were from MSNBC, but good reporters ask pointed questions (you see this a lot at press conferences, locker room questions, etc.). Doesn't mean the reporter agrees with the substance of the question. He or she is just trying to get a response to an opinion held by some in the public arena. Play Devil's Advocate, if you will. The reporter is basically giving you an opportunity to rebut and possibly disprove these assertions if you wish to.
A bad reporter would have sent you questions like, "why is the PS3 so great?"; "Gamers all seem to agree that God of War is greatest game ever made. Can you tell me why this is?"; "PS3 is coming out with some great exclusives this year and the Xbox 360 has none. How can Xbox 360 possibly survive after this year?"
Obviously, these questions are an extreme example of softball questions (although the fanboys might not think so). However, many reporters today fail to ask tough questions because they are scared of losing access. To not ask tough questions, however, is poor journalism and the responses would not be helpful to a reader.
Anyway, I'm sure you can come up with some great responses to the reporter's questions.
I really don't understand this rant. If you believe that these questions implicate answers, that are not valid (e.g. that $600 price tag was a crippling move) then invalidate this guy's presumptions.
If he wants to write biased review, he will. The best thing you can do is to try and steer him in the direction you think is right. Not answering just gives him ammo.
But all that assuming he is in fact biased. Which he may or may not be. Again - doesn't really matter. If you disagree with implied answers, you're free to say so. Ranting about how biased this guy is is definitely not helping the platform you care about.
As for the bias itself - questions have impied answer so they are biased, yes. That doesn't mean the guy is. Perhaps he looked at the state of things and concluded this bias is the closest to truth. Who knows. He may not think or see the same stuff you do. And he's probably "tech writer" not "gaming writer" so he has little expertise in consoles.
And come on, everyone is biased. Watch your vid. You stated that it's "MSNBC, so it's a red light right there", you rant about HD-DVD. Do you think he should ask former Sony employee about HD-DVD? For an article about PS3? Really? :)
I get your point though. You're tired with people bashing PS3 and that's a fair observation. But this is not the cause, this is an effect. All three companies made mistakes at some point and as long as you write about history of one of them it's hard to be all butterflies and unicorns about it.
Does he have to be all-negative? No. But we haven't seen the article yet. Although if everyone who has something possitive to say about PS3 reacts like you, article will be full of doom and gloom.
BAHAHAHAH American media outlets at their finest eh?
seriously I don't get why some "news" corporations in the U.S. even keep running considering that they're so biased half the time that they can't even hide it and they're so behind in their research that it makes them look like idiots to any informed person.
definitely slanted questions, it almost seems like ye olde MSNBC jumped on the ps3 hate train kinda late huh?
it's like most of these journalists can't even be bothered to notice about 20 million ps3 owners world-wide and they just focus on it's performance in the U.S. like it's the goddamn centre of the universe. No offense to any American people at all it's just there's some terrible journalism that happens there
Not really biased, since Im not sure what it would be biased in favor of.
The article never once mentioned the 360 so its hard to say its biased.
Perhaps a little too harsh, but then again everything the journalist said was true, so one could argue that maybe we PS3 fans are not harsh enough on Sony.
MSNBC is owned by half Microsoft, half NBC. And since it is American cable news, it doesn't surprise me that they are trying to be biased, they're all a joke, so much that Colbert and Jon Steward make a living off it. If this really is someone from MSNBC (and not some random N4G site looking for hits) then I have no doubts that Microsoft played a hand in these questions.
Hey David,
Hope this comment doesn't get buried under all these other comments that have been posted but anyway I was wondering if the reporter is simply misinformed or just not very knowledgeable about the videogame industry. If so then I think you should write him a response telling him why he's wrong or why you don't agree with him and his views. I mean it won't hurt if you simply correct him. I'd be interested to know what you think of that.
Regards,
Ali
lol I can only stand Diet Coke as well.
I'll just say this about the letter. Does anyone care anymore? It has been 3 years of talk about the PS3's failure. I just want to play games. I'm fine with industry talk about things like this, but 3 YEARS!!! I'm just done with the topic.
Now I can speak from personal experiance where the media has cherry picked comments from an interview to present the story they wanted to tell....But, at least the interviewer had enough tact to ask questions that seemed benign in terms of bias.
Is this guy for real? Let me paraphrase what I read into this. "Hey Dave I'm going to write an article about how the PS3 has been the suckiest suck fest that has ever sucked and if you agree with me on where it went wrong".
Come on that doesn't even make sence for an interviewer to slant their hat like that. Sure I agree when a person is going to write a story of interest they don't completly go about it with blinders on and a blank slate of complete objectivity.
There is always an agenda that inspired the writter to concieve the article and drives them to seek out the substance to fill the voids...but come on this is just rediculous.
All journalism is biased to a degree but this one is just like wow. I'm wondering if they really thought you'd answer back.
Those that seem to come to the defense of that journalist are wrong from my view. To me the journalist is either biased because he works for MSN or simply has a pessimistic view of Sony and/or the PS3 itself because every question is dripping with negativity.
MSNBC was the same way when G.W. Bush was in office. Always bashing him night after night, they never had anything good to say about him, didn't see you guys complaining then.
i agree the interview was bias and it is frustrating because they didn't acknowledge the successes of PS3 like Uncharted, Motorstorm, LBP, Resistance 1 & 2, and MGS4.
You should respond what about Microsoft doing research to see if people like having a great chance of their system failing due to red ring.
It's not just you, Jaffe. Pretty much most of the gaming media as well as mainstream media do not have a lot of nice things to say about the PS3, maybe it's because many of them already own the 360 or know about the 360 earlier. The problem is that SCEA has little or no leverage on them.
between all the soda and coffee you drink, it's a wonder you are still alive.
if i dont recall, ps1 and ps2 also had a rough start in the beginning. sony is the best in the biz at creating new IPs (cant say the same for M$) i, personally, think it was a good move installing blu ray in the system bc it makes the system practically future proof.
sure it has less games, but the quality of those games is what really matters, and they are really picking it up in that area. i mean killzone 2, MGS4, LBP, Resistance 2, and flower! not to mention the future titles like god of war III, GT5, infamous, heavy rain, etc.. there's also gonna be another price drop btw.. so please stop hating people.. lol i like what Genocide wrote haha
imo, yes he was very concentrated in what the faults of the PS3 are. He's like every other parasite fanboy, & yes this guy really made these questions with that intent....... WHO THE FUK WRITES OUT AN INTERVIEW WITH 4 QUESTIONS BEING ABOUT THD PRICE OF THE PS3 then asks for your comment!? Especially in this day & age. It's totally gay. Besides no one talks about how the PS3 was able to outsell the 360 in the same time period. PS3 19 mill units over two years. 360 18 mill over two years. At least that's what i've heard from multiple articles like Jotstiq. I don't actually know the figures but apparently even with the PS3's higher price point it's a fact.
This is Garbage Journalism, if he wants to do ps3 to date, if put a chrological chart of the first 2 years of ps3 and xbox360 sales ps3 has sold more in its first 2 years then xbox 360 did. I dont get it. its complete ambush journalism. I hope no one responds to it.. I bet valve will.
You know what made hate neogaf morons more than the biased journalist? The journalist in question is simply trying to make something up and he doesn't hide it, neogafers pretend to give sensible opinions when all they do is to abuse of flawed logic. By reading those comments, many of them declaring the final statement that the "PS3 is a failure", one would think its main competitor is selling 10x more. Oh, surprise! The numbers show that the sales are comparable for the same period, i.e., if both consoles were released at the same time they would be at the same point. That annoys me so much. Could people please use logic? The PS3 is not the runaway success Sony thought, but it is a superior product and definitely not a failure. In the long run it will be ahead. WHAT A BUNCH MORONS NEOGAF HAS!
You´re too sensitive; though your reaction is hardly surprising.
This industry isn´t used to such direct, straight forward, honest questions. I remember many times where the whole of NeoGAF complained about interviewers being too much of a pussy, thus only getting lame answers.
That´s why nowadays interviews are mostly worthless: they´re rephrased pr-statements.
This guy wanted your comments on these questions. And he didn´t bow down and treat you with gloves, in fear you could reject him. If all interviewers were like him, 1.) you wouldn´t have reacted that outraged, and 2.) we, the gamers, would get more interesting informaton.
And sorry, but in one of your postings on neogaf you wrote about your situation as a sony-exclusive developer. can you tell us what exactly makes you feel so good developing only for ps3, instead of working multiplatform, so that all gamers could enjoy your games? Besides the money, i mean. (that wasnt sarcastic or anything, but a straight forward question ;))
Well, when it comes to Kotaku being biased, I dissagree/agree with you. In my opinion, Luke Plunkett from Kotaku is the only biased S.O.B who talks BS on almost every Sony related post he makes.
Seems like the email sender is fishing for negative comments from a former Sony AAA studio "star" employee.
Maybe they are writing an article or book about the PS3 or Sony, how many has it been already?.
You know?, something to use for marketing or headline for the usual dirt flings that comes with it.
Anyway.
Media bias?, yes probaly there is.
Anything negative about the PS3 gets "propperly" exposed, and the positives kept back.
Where as it's the opposite when it comes to the Xbox360.
PS3 Home = Bad patch no one cares for.
Xbox360 NXE = The great new thing everybody loves.
Blah blah blah.....
Basicly, medias/blogs have a tendancy to be a bit like commercials/infomercials with anything Xbox360/Microsoft related.
Microsoft's push to establish itself on the advertising market starting to show effect?.
Then anything about the PS3/Sony, and medias/blogs seem to be filled with synic 60 minutes reporters, lifting every rock for that ever so delicious but dirty scoop.
The attitude is pretty much like "positives?, does the PS3 have any?".
Something seem a bit off.
It's sad that the industry is how it is, at the moment, but no surprise, with more money comes the assholes.
Forget about anything new, fresh and creative. As a marketting executive on a advertising company would say, "As long as people buy sludge, sell sludge".
After all, it's all bout profiling and marketting a company or product.
Seems that companies and their bitches on a leach, the media, wants to profile one company as good and the other evil, and plays it to the fullest potential.
Dave, I think the journalist is just asking some tough questions with some obvious hate for the PS3. Or maybe the guy just wants to see your replies to these questions which are similar to the tough/smarmy questions posed at the 1up video interview during the PS3 launch.
However, the overall jist of the interview is very negative towards the PS3. And those idiots who claim just cuz the 360 is ahead in North America, the PS3 is a "failure" or its "crippled" are just ignorant fanboys! The PS3 always outsells the 360 where I live and not to mention Japan and Europe.
My counter question to the journalist would be "How is a system failing or dying when the total worldwide sales is higher than the PS2/360 at the same point of their life cycle? Even at the high price point at that."
P.S - Did you get my message in YouTube? Just wondering cuz I know you are very busy to get back.
so instead of facing the hard truth like a man and answering those real questions you choose to run and hide like a little scared and offended nun screaming biaseeeeed?
come here sony defense force, defend my frail sanity from this cruel reality!
Another cool-looking PS3 exclusive is DEmon's Souls
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgPkFtlVkFA
They're extremely biased. You can tell because they're written to assume the failure of the machine is taken as fact, but that you might have an opinion opposite of that - but of course it would be only an opinion.
Example of style:
Obviously the facts prove this has been a bad idea, what is your opinion of these facts? Do you agree or disagree?
Yes I think the questions are slightly biased. I say "slightly" because while I believe they are slanted to illicit a negative response they are legitimate questions that I as a longtime Playstation devotee and Sony stockholder would like answered. I'm a huge Sony fanboy, but lets face facts: things are not going well. And yes, unfortunately, some things are going so poorly that the fans want some explanation. Asking early adopters to pony up $600 and promising exclusives that quickly evaporated has left us angry or unsatisfied at best.
Yes Sony has some great things coming up that I'm very, very excited about, but I do believe that the general consensus amongst even the diehards is that Sony has to concede this console generation and look to simply survive as opposed to win.
Given the Playstation's dominance in previous hardware generations and the surprisingly quick fall from top to bottom has left a lot of gamers scratching their head. Is the XBOX or Wii really that much better than PS3? Or has their been some missteps in management that are to blame for Sony's situation? Poor marketing perhaps?
I think of it like our current (almost) broken government; while I don't necessarily want to point fingers, I do think we need to find out where things went wrong so we can avoid those problems in the future. More importantly the people need to hear somebody take responsibility for something. Everyone passes the blame and it leaves people doubting any chance for improvement if no one can admit anything went wrong and if something did go wrong, no one is to blame.
C'mon Sony admit some mistakes were made. I'm still a big fan, but I'm losing faith. At least let me know you know you messed up.
These questions are biased in their wording, but I feel very strongly that they are relevant in their nature.
These are my two cents when it comes to those saying, "no, it wasn't biased, it was just 'hard-hitting journalism'."
It is important to distinguish (and keep distinct) one form of journalism from another. Here are three scenarios:
1) A journalist who thinks that Google is genuinely trying to do good things might write an opinion piece about her opinions on this subject. This is fine. As long as it is clear that this is an opinion piece, the journalist is free to post it and gain praise or criticism for her work.
2) A journalist who believed OJ Simpson did, in fact, kill his wife Nicole might approach Mr. Simpson with some hard-hitting questions like, "The world knows you did it. Why not just come clean about it?" In this case, the "hard-hitting" aspect is used to essentially interrogate the interviewee. It is an attempt to uncover truth where there have been suspected lies or a cover-up.
3) A journalist might want to know Mr. Jaffe's opinion on the success (or failure) of the PS3 might as a question such as, "Some people think the PS3 has been a total flop. Others think the PS3, in the same time-frame, has been just as successful as the PS2 before it. What is your opinion on this?" As you can see, the question itself does not "slant" and does not make it obvious what the interviewer's opinion is because, after all, the goal is not to give the interviewer's opinion (as in #1)... the goal is to get the interviewee's opinion.
Given this, the person who sent the questions to Mr. Jaffe did not just write an opinion piece of their own (#1) and leave it at that. The person was also not trying to dig out information from David because he thought he was lying or covering something up (#2). The interviewer also did not ask well balanced questions without making their own opinion obvious (#3).
Ultimately, what the "journalist" was really doing was digging for an agenda. First, by the wording of their questions, and the exclusion of proper balance of opinion, the interviewer made their own opinion painfully obvious. Second, the manner in which the questions were asked were an attempt to either get Mr. Jaffe to agree with their opinion, or disagree with their opinion. If he agrees, he's simply reinforcing their own idea. If he disagree's, he's on the defensive. In a way, it's a verbal attack. It's as if he is being interviewed in an attempt to interrogate him and uncover lies (as in #2) even though David is not "on trial", here.
All of this leads to the lack of credibility of this source. Chances are, if David had said 99 nice things about Sony and had said 1 bad thing, it's like the bad thing would have made the headline for the piece, and would have used Mr. Jaffe's good name to give the whole piece credibility.
This is the type of "journalism" reserved for things like the National Enquirer... or a Michael Moore documentary. Don't get me wrong... Michael Moore does a good job at digging for the truth where there is a cover-up (as in #2)... and the National Enquirer is good for entertainment value. But by combining tactics and promoting it as pure "hard-hitting journalism", you skew the entire meaning and purpose of this. It's for uncovering facts... not for uncovering opinions.
It is a FACT that Sony sells fewer PS3s than Microsoft sells XBox 360s these days. It is a FACT that Nintendo sells more consoles than Microsoft or Sony. It is an OPINION that this means Sony is winning or Sony is losing.
There are different schools of thought that determine whether they are successful or not. Some say the fact that since Sony is selling two distinct consoles simultaneously (PS2 and PS3) that these sales should be combined. Some say that since they still lose money on every console, you can never call it a "win." Some say you should only compare the same time-frame for reasonable numbers. These are all different ways to interpret the same facts. Some interpretations say they are winning... other interpretations say they are losing... both are different opinions and are not facts. For instance, if this were a foot race, nobody would be winning because the consoles don't have legs. Or if this were a consumer race, cotton swabs would be winning because people buy more cotton swabs than they buy game consoles. Again, all of this means absolutely nothing, except to the emotions of the person saying it... because they're trying to convey the facts in such a way that it proves their opinion is right.
If you want to say "the PS3 is winning", good for you. If you want to say "the XBox 360 is winning", good for you. If you want to say "the Wii is winning", good for you. First, however, it is important for you to give the definition of "winning" in the context you are using it. Does "winning" mean the company who sells it profits the most from it? Does "winning" mean that the consumers who enjoy it get more hours of enjoyment out of it? Does "winning" involve the return rate? Is this "winning" on a global scale, or just a local scale? Does "winning" compare first-year to first-year, or does it compare the current year to each other, regardless of the fact that the consoles were not released at the same time?
There is too much ambiguity in the word "winning" in complex situations like this for it to mean anything at all, other than to simply convey the opinion of the person mentioning it.
In what crazy world do I live in where the PS3 isn't an utter failure for Sony?
Are you people really this delusional? I know Jaffe is, but damn.
@Anonymous,
What is your definition of "failure" in this context? Does selling less than a million consoles constitute a failure and selling more than a million a success? Where is the finish line to determine win or lose?
Is it the number of console units sold you are interested in, or the number of console dollars the company brings in? Or perhaps you are only interested in the profits?
Depending on how you define "failure" in this context, the PS3 could either be considered a "failure" or a "mild success."
Have you made and sold anything in quantities more than 100,000? Have you done this AND priced the item above $300? If not, does that make you even more of a failure at life than Sony? Or do you, perhaps, have different goals in life than Sony has as a company.
In that case, is your definition of "failure" in this context... whether or not a company sets goals and then meets those goals? If that's the case, I wonder why you are so concerned with each company's success at reaching their own respective goals. Are you a stock-holder?
I don't own any shares of stock in either corporation, so the only thing that matters to me is if they deliver products which entertain me. Personally, I am not as entertained by the games found on the XBox 360 as I am by the games on the PS3. I also don't like the 360's controller. I enjoy the Wii a lot, but it's a completely different experience to me. Sometimes I am in the mood for the Wii. Sometimes I am in the mood for the PS3. Sometimes I am in the mood for neither. I am rarely in the mood for the 360, so my son plays that exclusively.
So, for me, I don't care of Sony is losing money on every console still... as long as they still believe they need to keep supporting the console, and as long as fun games keep coming out for it, I am happy. I don't care about the demographics of the users... or the happiness factors of "other people"... because, again, I bought the console for my own entertainment, not for bragging rights. If I feel like bragging... I'll brag about breaking a bad habit... or about good coding... or about my children... or about something that reflects on me personally. I don't brag about sports teams of which I am not a player on... or about consoles of which I don't profit from... or about companies for which I do not work for. That kind of fanboyism isn't worth my time or energy.
Yeah, I'd say that's biased journalism. Based off how the guy introduces the article, you'd expect there to be a balanced analysis of the PS3's history, but the questions asked are directed quite clearly at the system's (perceived) shortcomings. I expect journalism to be biased, but this is ridiculous. You don't need to be a PS3 fan to see that (this coming from a happy 360 owner).
Mostly loaded and rhetorical questions where he doesn't expect or care for an answer just wants to generate publicity.
Ps3 isn't a huge failure, it's still, correct me if i'm wrong, amongst the top 5 fastest selling consoles of all time. It's in 3rd place yes but it's not too far behind. It's nearly outsold the gamecube after just 2 year! If it keeps the same market share as it's had it'll end up with about 70m units sold, not that big a failure.
hah okay well, MSNBC is kind of ehh when it comes to news. They are pretty close to FOX news in my opinion.
I just read an article by them that stated for training dogs: "if you let your dog sleep on your bed, your dog will sometimes need to get off the bed to stretch its legs or go drink some water. You must get him to respect that you are sleeping and train him to get off the bed silently in order to not wake you."
WTF?!?! Are you serious? That made me LOL so bad, I mean who is writing this stuff? Do they have any clue what they are talking about?
heheheh I've gotten into dog training lately and its all I think about now.
So yeah MSNBC is not really a good source for news, they have the dumbest reporters you could imagine.
Wow that letter screamed BIAS...you handled this professionally and open-mindedly. Kudos to you jaffe :)
You are definitely one of my favorite and respected developers. Not only do you make awesome games but you stand proud and honest with the company you developed games for (Sony).
take it easy jaffe.
We can speculate until the cows come home about whether this journalist or MSNBC itself had malicious intent, but what I'm sure we can all agree on is that the questions posed were very accusatory and should have been better worded as to not illicit a negative response, such as the one Jaffe had.
In the end, I think the mere fact that MSNBC is a subsidiary of Microsoft is reason alone to question the intent of the article.
Well it seems to me sony never had a concrete plan for the game division. It seems like their only focused on the bluray movies. Maybe thats changed from when the designed the system. But even Jaffe doesn't seem to know SCEA plan or focus, it looks like they really dont care for the lowly gamers any more
@Anonymous,
Based on your swimmingly perfect logic, every corporation in the world just doesn't seem to have a "concrete plan"... they just go around doing research and development haphazardly.
Since you probably don't work for Sony's planning department, I will forgive the fact that you don't know the details of their plan.
Otherwise, for the regular public, it seems like they have a very solid plan. Build a console. Watch people buy this console. Watch the console base get bigger and bigger each day. Make the console cheaper to build. Reap the rewards of the profits from the consoles (eventually) and the software (now and over the next 5+ years.) In the meantime, continue to sell PS2s and the games that go with that console and reap the rewards (profits) from that as well.
In the meantime, bask in the elimination of HDDVD as a competitor... and watch as more and more consumers adopt Blu-ray as the replacement for DVD before finally embracing digital-only technologies.
So assuming this is their "concrete plan," so far they seem pretty successful. And, in fact, minus the Blu-ray stuff, it seems like Nintendo and Microsoft both have a similar plan. Nintendo just did a much better job at it than the other two.
Nobody talks about how there are more Hyundai's on the road than Ferrari's, and then try to suggest that this means people would much rather win a Hyundai as a prize than a Ferrari. Again, this comes down to taking facts, and interpreting the facts incorrectly due to opinion.
Also, last time I checked, Mr. Jaffe does not work for Sony, so of course he wouldn't know what their proprietary business plans are. Do you know what Microsoft's plans are? Can you give us some of their internal forecasts? What they plan to replace Windows 7 with eventually? Do you attend meetings within Pepsi? Do they plan on coming out with a whole new soda soon? (And I'm not talking about just replacing high fructose corn syrup with sugar and calling it "Pepsi Throwback".)
Again, why so interested in whether or not corporate executives are happy? Are you an investor or a gamer?
Screw MSNBC, just hurry up and make Twisted Metal.I want to play it.
Well..... It´s obviously that microsoft wants to study the secrets about the blu-ray disk to became THE RULER OF THE VIDEOGAMES´S WORLD!!!
Two things about this:
-first, DVD-HD isn´t bad, it´s pretty good, but is bad that microsoft do this class of things with the competition. Like send emails with that fucking thing about MSNBC (Read this with attention) only for see for what the hell the creator of the Legendary God of war prefers the PS3 and the Blu-ray.
-Second, c´mon guys microsoft is not playing good, (remember the crisis and the people that lost their jobs).
GOOOOOOOOOOOOO the fucking hell microlost (yes... I mean soft)!!!!
Please RE david.
BLS
I still don't understand this 'overpriced' theory.
Even at $200 less, the Xbox will have cost more after 4 years of LIVE. That doesn't even take into account the number of MONTHS within that 4 year period your machine will be GUARANTEED to be out of service.
In my mind, the Wii is the machine guilty of being overpriced. It is double the price of the PS2, but has pretty much the same library.
Dave, i take a blame, i posted this on N4G and it seems someone posted it on Neocrapgaf.
So ton of xbots came over here to talk shit on you.
Sorry man, don't listen to those dicks that like to suck MS c..k!
Just wanted to add: In what kind of bizarro world are we living that someone like "Bob" can honestly believe in what he writes?
Sorry (not), Bob, you´re totally wrong. This journalist didnt have an "agenda" (you sound like one of my crazy former bosses...whenever i wrote something SLIGHTLY negative (just facts), he would call out "my agenda" against sony, just for posting negative news,lol).
The PS3 is a failure in every aspect, except for Sony-fanboys. Coming from total domination, it´s in a distant 3rd place. It isnt making money. It has the worst software situation (it doesnt get as good versions as the 360 of multiplat games, and it doesnt get as many exclusives as the Wii). And the biggest indicator for how much of a failure the PS3 is, is when you look at one single FACT:
Thanks to the PS3, Sony lost ALL money (and more) that they made with the PS2.
If you think about that and still disagree, then go on with YOUR agenda of putting Sony into some positive light that it doesnt deserve. But dont call out on others. It´s silly.
Completely biased BS of some questions. Journalism is dead in America. It's seriously dead in POLITICS and now...GAMING?! Out of all things it had to die in GAMING?! And seriously how the fuck does biased journalism go into gaming?! It can happen during a game review but asking about a console?!
Oh wait the guy is from MSNBC....oh I see...he's from the Stone Ages - focusing on nothing but the past, and all the "so called failures" of Sony.
I wouldn't even bother answering them. BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED...by who?! By Sony and by people who aren't as biased as MSNBC or he is!
God...
He is clearly just looking for some controversial Jaffe-ism to likely fuel hi prewritten headline - 'Jaffe denounces PS3 blah blah' He is taking you for a fool to think you will answer some of the questions he has asked.
You are the best Jafe
Of course, they are biased questions! In fact, they are EXTREMELY biased questions. It's almost laughable how they are set up to elicit defensive responses.
Kind of like "When did you stop beating your wife?"
@Anonymous,
At some point, when people start saying you have an agenda, maybe you should stop considering them all to be crazy and think to yourself, "could they be right?"
Here's the thing. Maybe it isn't that you had an agenda. Maybe it's that you are an extremely pessimistic person. A lot of even-keeled people tend to think that overly-pessimistic people have an agenda of spreading pessimism. So, perhaps his use of the word "agenda" was a bad choice.
And so, maybe I am wrong... maybe the journalist writing to Mr. Jaffe was just very pessimistic. They don't like reporting on JUST facts... they like reporting on the NEGATIVE FACTS. That's fine. They have found their niche. They have followed in Jerry Springer's foot-steps. Good on them.
My point (and I'm not trying to paint Sony [or any corporation that just wants money] in a good light) is simply this. As much as negative news and hard hitting interrogations sells advertising on websites and TV, the reality is... people really don't like hearing nothing but negative news.
It's annoying. It's frustrating. It creates this sense that the entire world is ending. Maybe it is, but what's the point of constantly reporting on it? Imagine a news reporter that, every day, says "I am now one day closer to my death, and so are you. Your health is deteriorating each and every day and scientists can't really stop it. One day you will die, and it's inevitable. Ok, Jim, and now onto sports."
What's the point? For people who want balance, they'd think the reporter had an "agenda" to bum everyone out. Maybe the reality is much simpler... the reporter just needs some good counseling or therapy, or maybe they stopped taking their medication.
So, again, the point isn't whether or not the journalist asked questions of facts... it's the point that every question mostly asked about the negative facts and there was very little about the positive facts. A third-grader could see this.
So, again... if the journalist is writing about "the history of Sony", then their questions should cover the good AND the bad... if they send out a questionnaire that mostly asks about the bad, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect someone to think they had an agenda? Again, maybe that is wrong. Maybe the person is just a grouch and they have a hard time seeing the positives in life. Or, maybe they already wrote about the good stuff and are now digging for the bad stuff. But, from Mr. Jaffe's point of view, they were only digging for the bad stuff... and that's bad form. Why does Mr. Jaffe have to report on the bad stuff while someone else got to report on the good stuff? It's bad journalism.
Bob,
You seem like a smart guy, but you and the rest of the people criticizing these questions really have no clue about which you speak. The factual assertions in those questions, like it or not, are part of the public consciousness. A good reporter writing about the state of the PS3 to date should ask these type of questions. Just because you personally disagree with the substance of the questions, doesn't make them biased. How do you know the reporter was not going to use Jaffe's answers to respond to the negative perception surrounding the PS3 in some quarters? I think David would have a better argument if the article misused his answers or took them out of context. I understand why David may not want to answer these questions if he doesn't know the reporter's work and he wants to avoid any controversy with Sony.
Being good reporter is not easy because it requires asking questions that are not always comfortable. But it is the best way to get interesting and provoking answers rather than a press release.
Oh and open-ended passive questions are used in puff pieces.
Dave I'm an Italian 33 years old guy :) from the release of ps3 I've noticed a constant flow of bashing ps3/Sony articles from many journal web sites, games e-zine etc. So I've made 3 personal opinions (maybe I'm wrong but many friends of mine have the same opinions)
1)the sad truth is that many journalists has turned incredibilly in fanboys and act like they hope that SCEE division shut down and Sony leave the gaming industry.Huh!
2)ps3 bashing articles generate an incredible amount of traffic and click on the web pages.
3) many journalists don’t know what they’re talking about. only sensationalism.
anyway the problem is : gaming journalism has LOST his credibility. Many ppl don't trust in reviews, articles etc anymore. Yes! Dave, you are right this is biased journalism.
Bob:
And so, maybe I am wrong... maybe the journalist writing to Mr. Jaffe was just very pessimistic. They don't like reporting on JUST facts... they like reporting on the NEGATIVE FACTS. That's fine. They have found their niche. They have followed in Jerry Springer's foot-steps. Good on them.
Stop being delusional. It was neither pessimistic nor an agenda. Heck, could you point out the "positives"? Jaffe mentioned something about PSN-titles selling well...is that really something that compensates the 599$-"negative"? The "from #1 to #3"-negative? Or the "has used up all money they ever made with the ps2"-negative?
No.
Noones leaving out positives of the PS3. It´s just that they´re talking about things that matter. Some PSN-title selling well doesnt matter in the grand scheme of a console´s success. The three negatives i mentioned, do.
this is such a cheap way to ruin the reputation of your competitor and put ypur own company in a superior position
it almost reminds my of the presidential elections.
its disgusting...
How don't I have a clue about which I speak? I am speaking my opinion. Are you saying that you know more about my opinion than I do. That's amazing. Truly.
"factual assertions in those questions"? Are you kidding me? Factual assertions are statements. So, is the interviewer making a statement or asking a question? In a court of law, the judge would say the interviewer was "leading the witness."
"the public consciousness", these days, is made up of what the media says. So, it's a vicious circle. A good reporter who makes statements would just make statements. A good reporter who asks questions would just ask questions. A reporter who disguises a statement in the form of a question is just a bad reporter.
I don't disagree with the substance of the questions. Why would anyone disagree with the substance of questions? That makes no sense. A question shouldn't have substance... the point of a question is to seek substance. A question such as "What is your IQ?" is a question seeking substance. A question such as, "Are you stupid?" is a question implying substance.
Yes, I agree. Good reporting sometimes requires asking tough and uncomfortable questions. Again, you need to go back to what I wrote. When trying to ask a murderer whether they really did it (OJ), or a President whether he really had sex with his intern, or anything along those lines... then yes, you have to ask the uncomfortable question. But to ask a game developer who used to work for a company marketing questions is just unprofessional. It's like asking someone who was just fired... whether or not the company they used to work for is a decent company. You'll get an answer, yes... but it's not a balanced answer.
It sounds to me like this interviewer is your favorite journalist. You're pumping him up like he is the best journalist around. I'm not commenting on the PS3 or the XBox 360 or the Wii because, honestly, I think these are all great systems that clearly each have their fan base. I have all three systems in my household. I have paid all three companies my hard-earned money because I feel they are all worth it. What *I* am commenting on is whether or not the person who asked the questions is a good journalist or not. And so far, you haven't been asking the tough questions about whether or not the journalist is qualified and, instead, have been pumping up this journalist like their pay should be doubled. On this, we disagree. What do you have to gain by trying to convince me that this journalist is better than I feel they are?
@Mfauli
"The PS3 is a failure in every aspect, except for Sony-fanboys".
ok There are over 20 million of sony fanboys in the world.
"It has the worst software situation (it doesnt get as good versions as the 360 of multiplat games, and it doesnt get as many exclusives as the Wii)"
stop reading here.
ps3 have the best line-up for the 2009 and more exclusive than xbox360 and Wii.fact!please don't turn this discussion in a console war.
hey man, I searched for an email adress but I didn't find, so I write you here. I would like to send you the first cd of my band, a band that success to be published only in Japan because this sick market is unable to receive and cultivate the new artist. I will not post any link since I feel that also this message could be considered SPAM, but you know I watching your videos and hear your thoughts almost everyday and I feel you as a friend, so I would like to send you my work. gimme an adress man, that's my email: dr.yosh@gmail.com
you're great,
godspeed
Matteo
@MFauli,
"Jaffe mentioned something about PSN-titles selling well...is that really something that compensates the 599$-'negative'?"
A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving for viewpoints that aren't biased.
Ok, so, why would the journalist care whether or not some positives "compensate" for some negatives? That's not the journalist's job. The journalist's job is to find information that the public doesn't already know and to provide this information so that the public can make the informed decision or form their own opinion. Distributing opinions is not the journalist's job... distributing facts is... and allowing the public to form an opinion on these facts is the goal.
Once the journalist starts regurgitating public opinion... or starts giving his or her own take on things... they fail to be a journalist and they become nothing more than a blogger. Someone who is simply standing up on their soap box and throwing their opinion into the ring, even if this opinion matches everyone else's.
Let's say that 99% of the world thinks that Sony sucks. That's great. Then the reporter can say, "99% of the world thinks that Sony sucks." and leave it at that. Maybe I am mistaken, but I thought this "journalist" was writing a piece on Sony... not writing a piece on the public's opinion of Sony. And that's where I think this journalist needs 10 or 20 more years of experience in the field before truly learning the lesson.
Again, everyone knows OJ killed Nicole. It's painfully obvious. But a good reporter would still talk about the "alleged" killing because, again, the reporter doesn't know "facts" that could "prove" it beyond a "shadow of a doubt" because, if that were the case, he wouldn't have been found innocent. So, instead, everyone is left to speculate. Everyone is entitled to their speculation and to their opinion, but becoming a journalist means you have to put these things aside when you are reporting facts and only facts.
If he had only said, "Do you think Sony made a mistake by including Blu-ray into the machine?" That would have been a valid question without bias. Instead, he asked "Consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology. Do you feel Sony overvalued Blu-ray, after DVD helped the PS2 become such a huge success?" What's with this "consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology" have anything to do with the question, other than to insert bias?
If I make a toothpaste and I want to truly know what dentists think of it, I will just ask "What do you think of this toothpaste?"... NOT "Lots of people love this toothpaste, but I want to know what YOU think." If you don't see the difference, then you're already brainwashed.
@Mfauli
"The PS3 is a failure in every aspect, except for Sony-fanboys".
ok There are over 20 million of sony fanboys in the world.
"It has the worst software situation (it doesnt get as good versions as the 360 of multiplat games, and it doesnt get as many exclusives as the Wii)"
stop reading here.
ps3 have the best line-up for the 2009 and more exclusive than xbox360 and Wii.fact!please don't turn this discussion in a console war.
You turned it into that when you claimed, PS3 had the best lineup for 2009. How delusional can one person be?
And there arent 20 million fanboys, Sony could only wish for that to be the case.
Of those 20 million, a lot of casual gamers simply dont care about the lineup. They´re still getting their yearly EA-update games, their GTA and whatever. If you as a videogame fan, though, prefer the PS3´s library over any of its competitors, you re a fanboy. Simple as that.
Oh, and you couldnt even say WHY im wrong, haha. Even if im so generous as to leave out the software-situation, in WHAT way is the PS3 not a failure? Im excited to her the answer for that.
@Bob:
Ok, so, why would the journalist care whether or not some positives "compensate" for some negatives?
This is all that matters. IF a journalist is about to write an article of what lead Sony into today´s situation, WHY would he ask about small positives, that don´t matter in the context of the article?
High price, Bluray, losing money, losing formerly exclusive franchises...THAT are all points that matter. Points that lead to today´s situation. A bunch of download-games selling relatively well didn´t do anything for or against Sony. That´s what i meant. If the journalist simply wanted to give an, well, "overview" of Sony Computer Entertainment, then you´d be right. Then something like that would be interesting to know. But when you´re writing an article "How Sony went from dominating to tail tracking" you´re sticking to facts that matter within the context.
Blatant biasness, such as the one presented by this "journalist", is very damaging to any form of media at large. It's one thing to report based on facts, but it's another if the medium is reporting based on opinion. After all bad journalism is good for anybody's pocket book these days.
Sure, as you said Jaffe, Sony has dropped the ball on alot of things. But who hasn't? Microsoft has dropped the ball way more than Sony by a long shot. Failure of HD DVD, Red Ring of Death, add-on expenditures, lack of hardware customizations, etc. Of course their not going to report on any of that because it's Microsoft's media company and that ain't happening.
Kuto's to you Jaffe for seeing those questions for what they are, an attempt to discredit you and the company that you work for. Fuck 'em!
@ MFauli:
"Noones leaving out positives of the PS3. It´s just that they´re talking about things that matter. Some PSN-title selling well doesnt matter in the grand scheme of a console´s success. The three negatives i mentioned, do."
"They" are a MS related company!
What kind of intention do you think have "they" if it isn't promoting their own product and discredit the competition?
"They" are a MS related company!
What kind of intention do you think have "they" if it isn't promoting their own product and discredit the competition?
How does that matter? Even IF that was Microsoft trying to make profit of Sony´s mistakes...as long as they´re going for the facts, nothing wrong with it.
"How does that matter? Even IF that was Microsoft trying to make profit of Sony´s mistakes..."
Is everything acceptable if it serves your agenda?
Is this the way an American company should work?
Is everything acceptable if it serves your agenda?
Is this the way an American company should work?
If im pro-life and i use scientfic facts for my agenda of being pro-life, then it is totally acceptable.
Same with Microsoft: As long as they´re sticking to the facts, they can say whatever they want. It is the truth. Now should they start lying, then it´d be different.
"Same with Microsoft: As long as they´re sticking to the facts, they can say whatever they want. It is the truth. Now should they start lying, then it´d be different."
They and you don't need to lie to promote their/your own agenda.
But pretending to write an article based on facts only using negative facts and leaving positive facts out of it is nothing else as hypocritical and biased.
@MFauli,
Again, it sounds like this journalist is essentially being an armchair quarterback. Nobody likes that. But it sells ads on websites. Why? Because if people are interested in the articles, they would stay for the articles and wouldn't bother clicking ads to go elsewhere. Instead, if the article is boring or off-base or only there to stroke the egos of the fan-boys, they'll be looking for something else to do and are more likely to click an interesting ad to continue surfing the web. Boom, money earned from article.
And I think you painted the picture perfectly. You said, "IF a journalist is about to write an article of what lead Sony into today´s situation..." You made my point right there. This would imply that Sony is in a "situation."
To me, the only "situation" Sony is in is they have made a console that I enjoy. That's it. Why would I care if "the public" agrees with me or not? I don't invite "the public" over to my place to play games with me. So, again, I don't care what "the public" thinks about my choice in cotton swabs... or my choice in toothpaste... my taste in food... or the movies I watch. Why? Because these things are my choices... my opinions.
So, again, what is a journalist contributing to the world by telling the world what it already thinks?
You want to believe that "the whole world" thinks Sony "lost the game"? I'd ask, "what game did they lose?" The "console wars"? Sorry, but that's a made up term by the media. So, essentially, the only "game" that Sony has "lost" is the one made up by the media in the first place.
That's my point. The media has changed from being a source of "facts" into a source of "entertainment." Jim Cramer is another fine example. He is not a journalist. He gives his opinion. Whether his opinion matches the public's opinion is irrelevant. A journalist gives facts and keeps things balanced. If 99% of the public think one way and the other 1% think another way, a good journalist would give both sides. A bad journalist would say "oh, well, this 1% is so much smaller than the 99%, so I'll just throw that out and report only on the 99%." Because this means the journalist would be skewing the 99/1 ratio into a 100/0 ratio. They would be turning facts into fiction.
Sensationalizing public opinion is not journalism. It's entertainment.
Bob
To me, the only "situation" Sony is in is they have made a console that I enjoy. That's it
Thats find and dandy. But with that attitude you should never ever enter a discussion about industry development or sales numbers. Otherwise you´ll get called "fanboy", because thats what fanboys do: Come into a topic that is about pure, cold facts and write it all off with "who cares, i have fun". Again, that is fine..for yourself.
And Sony factually IS in a "situation", how you word it. If that doesnt touch you because you have fun anyway, its ok, but dont say that someone is leading an "agenda" or "biased" only because he´s talking about what is reality. It IS reality. But if YOU choose that it isnt a reality that matters for your gaming experience, it´s fine. But that´s just for you then.
They and you don't need to lie to promote their/your own agenda.
But pretending to write an article based on facts only using negative facts and leaving positive facts out of it is nothing else as hypocritical and biased.
Cant you read?
If a journalist is writing an article about the negative development of SCE, and using big points like the price, bluray or the lost money of previous generations, WHY would he mention a minor positive point that had no effect in either direction?
There are NO positives about the PS3 that are comparable to the negatives this journalist is relating to. If they are, name one. If you think there are more, name more. I cant think of even one, and im totally uninterested in consolewar bs.
MFauli:
"And Sony factually IS in a "situation", how you word it. If that doesnt touch you because you have fun anyway, its ok, but dont say that someone is leading an "agenda" or "biased" only because he´s talking about what is reality. It IS reality. But if YOU choose that it isnt a reality that matters for your gaming experience, it´s fine. But that´s just for you then."
Yes it is reality.
It is also reality that Sony's situation isn't as bad as "some people" want us to believe.
Especially if "those people" work for a company that stands in direct competition to Sony.
Can't or aren't you willing to see the crux?
Yes it is reality.
It is also reality that Sony's situation isn't as bad as "some people" want us to believe.
Especially if "those people" work for a company that stands in direct competition to Sony.
Can't or aren't you willing to see the crux?
I can see the "crux", but if it´s true, you cant do anything against it. You have to live with it.
And the situation Sony is in...ANY worse, and they´re dead. That´s the PS3´s situation. It is not dead, but it is as close as you can get to without actually being. dead.
And it´s mindbaffeling that people here cant understand that these questions weren´t biased.
They were worded after a certain goal the journalist had in mind, but that doesnt change anything about the fact that those were legit questions.
I remember SO many times when gamers on NeoGAF complained about journalists being too nice to the interviewee, resulting in nothing more than rephrased pr-lines. And then i remember a guy being un-nice asking if Pikmin 3 was in the works...and the internet still praises the guy for his boldness. THAT is the kind of journalism this industry needs.
It looks like he did his research, and indeed knew what he was talking about, but he overlooked a whole lot of things and only focused on the negative. I would say you're correct in thinking it's a very biased "interview".
"There are NO positives about the PS3 that are comparable to the negatives this journalist is relating to."
I think you don't understand what I am talking about.
It wouldn't matter if he would work for a company that isn't involved with any company involved in the... how did you call it... "consolewars BS".
But actually he is working for MSNBC. A company that IS involved and can be used as an instrument of propaganda by one side.
The same could be said vice versa.
MFauli:
"And the situation Sony is in...ANY worse, and they´re dead. That´s the PS3´s situation. It is not dead, but it is as close as you can get to without actually being. dead."
If this would be the case shares were already in the cellar and the company dead.
"They were worded after a certain goal the journalist had in mind,"
The point is the goal served the goals of a competitioner.
Which makes his and the companies behaviour questionable.
"THAT is the kind of journalism this industry needs."
Au contraire. This is the kind of journalism fanboys are asking for.
"If this would be the case shares were already in the cellar and the company dead."
And i said "they´re as close as possible to without actually being dead". Not that they´re already dead.
"The point is the goal served the goals of a competitioner.
Which makes his and the companies behaviour questionable."
How is it questionable? 1, you dont even know if there´s an "agenda" going on, 2, even if, IT DOES NOT MATTER.
If Sony could do the same, they´d be happy, but they cant, because MS did a lot of things right with the 360. There are negatives, but the positives outweigh them by far, so Sony wouldnt be able to hire a journalist for writing an article about "The 360´s downfall", because everyone would knew they´re lying.
If using facts for your own thing is an agenda, well, then i guess monthly sales numbers are agenda, too, eh?
"Au contraire. This is the kind of journalism fanboys are asking for."
No.
Im a gamer, an enthusiastic one, and i want information. That´s why im visiting websites like neogaf or others. I dont need journalists that ask Shigeru Miyamoto "What is your favourite game?" for the 10000th time. I want them to ask him "There was that patent about a new gaming mode and the pictures within the patent looked similiar to the legend of Zelda. Will the next Zelda-game use that concept?" and if he tries to get away without answering i want them to ask "Millions of gamers are unhappy about the complete lack of complex games like Zelda, so please give us and your fans anything."
Basically, journalists should insist on getting at least SOME interesting information.
But reality is that journalists are total pussies in front of a game developer and are asking only the obvious stuff. That´s why today´s gaming journalism is uninteresting.
David, you should have given the guy's name. NO MEDIOCRE JOURNALIST DESERVES A JOB, EVER.
MFauli:
"How is it questionable? 1, you dont even know if there´s an "agenda" going on,"
He is working for MSNBC.
"2, even if, IT DOES NOT MATTER."
It matters. He and MS are using his position to discredit the competiotion. This is called unfair competition.
"If Sony could do the same, they´d be happy, but they cant,"
Ans still unfair competition
"because MS did a lot of things right with the 360. There are negatives, but the positives outweigh them by far,"
How do you weight them?
" so Sony wouldnt be able to hire a journalist for writing an article about "The 360´s downfall","
still unfair competition
" because everyone would knew they´re lying."
"If using facts for your own thing is an agenda, well, then i guess monthly sales numbers are agenda, too, eh?"
Using sales numbers and praise your work is legitimate.
But discrediting your competition isn't. Let numbers speak and uninvolved judge.
PS: Do you know what dignity and honor means?
Bob said...
"How don't I have a clue about which I speak? I am speaking my opinion. Are you saying that you know more about my opinion than I do. That's amazing. Truly."
For the simple reason that you are offering opinions on something you do not appear to know much about. Kind of like when fanboys with no technical or developer experience talk about whether the Xbox 360 or PS3 is more powerful. Sure, you can have an opinion, I suppose. But it isn't based on anything factual... it's just what you believe based upon your lay observations.
From your posts, it's clear that you do not have any education or experience in this area and that you've never had to submit a report for a critical media outlet. You're just making arguments based upon your observations. When I look into the night sky, the moon looks much bigger than those few times I see Mars or Venus. If I was someone who knew nothing about space, I may actually argue that the Moon is bigger based upon my observations. Obviously, this would make me look very silly.
You go on:
"It sounds to me like this interviewer is your favorite journalist. You're pumping him up like he is the best journalist around."
I have no clue who this reporter is and he/she could be the biggest dick around for all I know. There are reporters out there with agendas (i.e. Fox News). But you are making a judgment on the questions posed, not the article written nor this reporter's past work. If you knew anything about journalism, you would realize that these questions are a:) normal in the news arena; b) utilized in objective articles; and c) are not generally included in the article itself. Perhaps many gaming industry reporters fear alienating developers with such pointed questions and this is why David was taken aback. Asking such questions of the easily offended person could cut off that reporter's access.
If David knows who this individual is and believes he would not get a fair shake from him or her based on past articles, then I agree David shouldn't answer the questions. But the questions are not indicative of anything. Hell, it's likely that a reporter has grilled Xbox employees/developers about the 360's shortcomings as well. The 360 certainly has had a bumpy road. I severely doubt all of these PS3 fanboys would be jumping all over the reporter if the questions had been slanted the other way.
The fact that the questions came from MSNBC would be worrisome if that outlet never reported negatively on the Xbox 360. I suggest you search their site for "Red Ring of Death" or "scratched discs" and see if anything turns up.
Unfortunately, the internet enables people to spout off as if they were all experts on everything. Your presumption that this reporter just wants to report the negative for instance. Or your following quote:
"So, is the interviewer making a statement or asking a question? In a court of law, the judge would say the interviewer was 'leading the witness.'"
Um, no he wouldn't. Maybe you sat on a jury once or watched a lot of Matlock and now you think you are an expert on the law, but most of those questions are not leading. Leading questions call for a "yes/no" response and do not typically allow for an explanation of the answer. Questions starting with the words, "who, what, where, why and how" are not leading. And questions such as "Can you elaborate?" are far from objectionable.
Leading questions are also not necessarily a bad thing in a courtroom. A good lawyer always asks leading questions on cross-examination, and in a limited fashion, direct examination as well, in order to set up his or her next question. Of course, the questions utilized at trials have nothing to do with journalism so your comparison is wrong-headed from the start.
In any case, the question posed by David's post was simply, "Is this biased journalism?" Based upon only the questions he listed, no, it is not. If the journalist posts an article slamming the PS3 based upon unsubstantiated or misleading facts, or takes David's responses out of context, then an argument could be made that he was biased.
I disagree. A fanboy isn't someone who likes what they like and leaves others to their own opinion. A fanboy is someone who insists that everyone needs to like what they like, who says that a company is awesome simply because they like the company's products, and instantly talks about liking the same company's new products without actually checking them out first. In other words, a fanboy's opinion is made up before actually trying something... and even after trying something, if it sucks, they will still defend it.
That's not what I'm doing at all. I'm saying that some people like pickles and some don't. I don't consider people who like pickles to be "fanboys" of pickles. A "fanboy" of pickles would be someone who thinks that pickles are the only things which should be eaten... that those who don't like pickles are "wrong"... and that every food should be pickled.
If you are going to define "fanboy" as someone who simply enjoys something, then the whole world is full of fanboys of sex... tv... etc, etc... and the word completely loses its meaning.
In that case, since I seemed to have gotten your panties in a bunch by stating my opinion, I will rephrase. You're right. That person is a great journalist in today's era of journalism.
And it is my opinion that today's era of journalism is shit. It's just a bunch of great writers regurgitating a bunch of propaganda pumped out to sell products or advertising.
So, yes, journalists like this disgust me. It's a bunch of drivel. It's the equivalent of watching soap operas all day. Sure, it might be entertaining at first... but after a few weeks or years, you just end up wasting a bunch of your time without progressing your life or the lives of others in any significant or useful way.
When *I* seek news... I'm looking for NEWS. Something that I don't already know. Telling me what your birthday is (simply because I don't know) doesn't count, because knowing this isn't going to make me any smarter. If you tell me that Microsoft is coming out with an awesome new game in November 2009, this is something I am interested in. This would be news; new information that I wasn't previously aware. I could tell my son all about it and he'd be excited.
So, really, it comes down to two types of NEWS. News that is hard-hitting... giving an interesting and entertaining perspective... news that is speculative... etc... This is great entertainment. I enjoy reading things like this from time to time. I enjoy watching these types of shows on TV. It's full of drama... well written... entertainment. That's great.
And then, there is the type of news which INFORMS. It doesn't say "here is why the economy is tanking"... it just says "the economy is tanking." It doesn't speculate who is at fault for inflation... it just gives the straight facts about inflation. It doesn't say here is why Sony is tanking... it just gives the numbers.
When I want to be entertained... I want to be entertained. When I want to be informed... I want to be informed. If someone is going to ask Mr. Jaffe a bunch of questions, the only thing I want coming out of it are: 1) Mr. Jaffe's opinions. 2) Mr. Jaffe's information. That's it. I don't want to hear even a hint of the interviewer's opinions... nor do I want to hear the opinions of the world at large... just information coming from David. I'm not looking for The Tonight Show... I'm looking for the 11 o'clock news.
So, since that particular journalist was aiming for the entertainment aspect, and since it was clear that this wasn't the type of interview David wants to be involved in, then I am very much entertained by the fact that he brushed him aside like the leech he is. For that, I applaud Mr. Jaffe for maintaining integrity.
I am sure those who were looking for a nice circus side-show will be disappointed, because they would have wanted to hear Mr. Jaffe's take on how Sony might be going the way of Circuit City. I wouldn't have wanted to read it. That's my selfish opinion, and you've got your own selfish opinion. We disagree because we are free to disagree. It doesn't make me right or wrong. It doesn't make you right or wrong. It just makes us different.
For the record, and let me be clear... if the reporter had asked Mr. Jaffe about the mistakes Microsoft made with the XBox 360 and the red ring of death, the mistakes they made with HD DVD, and the fact that they are trailing so behind Nintendo, I would be equally disgusted. I would also be happy if David told such a reporter to "shove it" as well.
If he wants to ask David about his experiences working for Sony... or his experiences having his own company... etc, etc... that's something I would be interested in reading. Anything else would just be drivel. Instead, to me, it sounded like the interviewer was hitting Mr. Jaffe with "hard hitting questions" like he's on trial. Here's a hint: He's not on trial.
Again, it's not the topic of Sony... or PS3... or anything along those lines that made me happy that David blew him off. It's simply the fact that the person is just trying to write an article about negative stuff. Look, every company is hurting right now. Should we write one article at a time talking about the rise and fall of each individual company, or should be accept the fact that it's good enough to know everyone is hurting, and then move on? What next? Another article about how Windows Vista sucks? Give me a break. We've heard it 50,000 times. It has been done to death. It's just plagiarism of ideas. Let's bring some journalists with real information, not journalists that are sensationalizing the world.
Oh. My. God. I want to print this quote and put it up on my wall. It is HILARIOUS.
"These questions weren't BIASED. They were worded after a certain GOAL the journalist had in mind..." (emphasis, mine)
I just love it. It's great humor. It sells itself.
@ Bob,
I still disagree with you, but I'll say this...you are probably one of the most well-written commenters with whom I have had the pleasure of debating.
Have a good weekend. I have to move on to real-world stuff.
Maybe I am just improperly using the term "bias" here and for that, I apologize. Let me correct myself. I believe the journalist had an agenda. His agenda was to write a piece about how Sony has failed. I'm not interested in reading an interview Mr. Jaffe by someone who had any other agenda besides "getting Mr. Jaffe's viewpoint." Period.
If his agenda was to paint Sony in a bad light because they went from #1 to #3, that's great. More power to him. Maybe he should interview the executives of Sony. Once he has written his article, I won't be interested in reading it. It's drivel. I was no more interested in the drivel about how Sony became #1. Who cares? Sony doesn't write my paychecks. I'm glad they came out with a game console that I enjoy. That's about it. For anyone to be any more of a "fan" than that is just idolatry, which just scares me. Anyone who worships a corporation needs to have their head examined. That's all. This is all my opinion is coming from. Has nothing to do with pro-Sony or anti-Sony or Microsoft versus Sony versus Nintendo. This isn't a football game. Companies competing with each other doesn't entertain me. Football entertains me. Not a nerd fight between investors.
@Atticus,
Thanks for your comments. I appreciate it. The same goes to you and at least one of the people posting under "Anonymous." This has been a good debate, if not filled with a bunch of misunderstanding. It's like watching one person say "The cloud looks like a rabbit." and the other says, "No, it's not, it's water vapor." It's sad and funny at the same time. Both sides can be right in arguments about opinions. Opinions are like butt-holes. Everyone's got one and most of them stink. Some people are so caught up in the Microsoft versus Sony versus Nintendo that they like saying "Sony lost." I disagree with this opinion, only because to me... for a company to lose... they'd have to be bankrupt. Circuit City lost. Sony hasn't lost. They're just in third place right now. I feel the gaming market has enough room for three big players. Sony is still a big player. Sega (as far as the console market goes) lost. Sony is still in the game. They aren't doing as well as Microsoft right now... or Nintendo... but they still provide viable options in a market that favors options. There are still people buying up their consoles and still developers making great games for their consoles... so, in my book, it makes all three winners. They just end up with different colored trophies, and Sony's happens to be bronze. This might matter to an investor... or to a fanboy... but it shouldn't matter to the common gamer.
Fuck that email. It has to be somebody fucking with yea. No serious journalist would right that shit.
Bob:
"For the record, and let me be clear... if the reporter had asked Mr. Jaffe about the mistakes Microsoft made with the XBox 360 and the red ring of death, the mistakes they made with HD DVD, and the fact that they are trailing so behind Nintendo, I would be equally disgusted. I would also be happy if David told such a reporter to "shove it" as well."
It wouldn´t be okay, because THIS would be biased. It´s leaving out BIG positives, like 360 selling better than PS3, or 360 being profitable already, or getting former Sony-exclusive franchises onto their platform. And it would be ridiculous to suddenly compare 360 to Wii, when it´s always about the HD-systems.
For all your accusations of the initial questions of the journalist being biased, you dont seem to know what biased actually means.
"If his agenda was to paint Sony in a bad light because they went from #1 to #3, that's great."
You seriously dont understand things. NOONE has to PAINT Sony "in a bad light". They´re already staying within a bad light by their very own faults. THAT is what makes the difference between bias and not-bias. Sony is in a bad situation and that journalist´s questions were relating to this FACTUALLY, REAL situation.
But MS, and of course Nintendo, are not in a bad situation. To write a negative article about those 2 competitors, you have to "paint them in a bad light". Because they´re not standing within one by their own fault.
"It wouldn't be okay, because THIS would be biased."
Wooooow. Ok, now I see the caliber of whom I'm talking with and, at this point, let's just be safe about it and say you're right... you've always been right... and you will forever be right. You can go back to your UFO convention, now. :D
It's somehow biased if done for one company but not for another. You're biased in your definition of bias. That's neat. It's like illogical logic. It's very entertaining. Thanks for the exchange.
And now back to the grown-up talk. If the interviewer were doing an article titled, "The Mistakes Microsoft Has Made"... then, by the logic previously given, it would seem that it would be ok for a reporter to only ask questions about Microsoft's screw-ups.
So, as long as the title of your article is favorable or unfavorable towards a company (rather than simply being factual only, leaving the "favor" in the eyes of the readers), then suddenly the line of questioning is no longer biased? That makes no sense. That's like saying, "It's not that I hate that man, I'm just researching for a book I'm writing titled, 'I Really Hate That Man'." Again, it makes no sense... you're trying to distance yourself from reality in order to suggest that you can be right and wrong at the same time on the same subject.
And you're right... I wasn't using "bias" very accurately before. I was assuming that someone who has an agenda when writing an article is biased, which isn't entirely accurate. That interviewer did have an agenda. The agenda was to talk about the fall of Sony. Given that, the line of questioning makes perfect sense. But, it's also safe to say that he thinks Sony is a failure, which is an opinion... because Sony hasn't filed for bankruptcy. In the game of business, there is always going to be a rise and fall... and ebb and flow of the tide. If you want to say that Sony's console is selling fewer consoles than Microsoft is selling right now, that's a fact. To say that because of this they're a failure, then that assumes that the definition of failure in this case is to sell more consoles than the competitor at the same time. That might be your definition, but it's not mine.
Think of it this way. Let's say that I have a car that can go 200 MPH tops and you have a car that can go 100 MPH tops. Then, let's say we are both going to compare cars by driving a distance of 200 miles. So, you decide to go first. We hadn't decided on any rules that says who goes first or not... or whether it matters that we're not going at the same time. After all, we're not comparing driving skills... to do that, we should both be driving the same car with the same top speed... we're comparing cars.
After about an hour, you're half way there and I still haven't started. Ten minutes later, I decide to hop in my car and take off. About 50 minutes into my ride, I'm almost to the destination and you're just getting there. Ten minutes later, I get there.
You could say, "Ha ha ha... I got here first! I won!"... but that assumes our goal was to reach the destination at the same time.
I would say, "No, that wasn't the point. We were comparing cars. It took you two hours to get here and only took me one hour."
And then a huge debate could ensue about the fact that you got there first and that I was just a sore loser for being 10 minutes late, and my car sucks, etc, etc... but anyone with at least one year of high school math can see that the goal was to see whose car was better.
Of course, even THAT is subjective. What is "better" for a car? Is it speed? Maybe it's comfort. What if, after the drive, my back hurt and yours didn't?
As you can see, there are a bunch of subjective things that can go into defining "better" or "winner" that have nothing to do with facts. Winning or losing is only a FACT when the rules of the game are defined before hand and agreed by all parties.
So, when you're dealing with competition between corporations, defining "winning" or "losing" is up to the eye of the beholder. To me, a company has "lost" when they go bankrupt. To an investor, a company might be "losing" when their stock price is dropping. To a gamer, a console company might be "losing" when developers stop making games for their machines.
To me, I don't care if a game is "exclusive" or not. That doesn't affect me one bit. Why would I want my son to not be able to play a game that I enjoy, or vice versa? If we can both enjoy the same game on our respective systems, that's "winning". So, to me, ending these stupid "exclusivity pacts" would be the ideal "win".
It seems your idea of "winning" is that Microsoft is selling more consoles than Sony right now. That's great for you. I don't know what you stand to gain from it, but if you're happy about that win, I'll hi-five you to be a good sport. But, for me, I don't see them as losing at all.
Now if I CARED about strength of company or position of console (which I don't, because I am a consumer, not an investor)... I would think that these factors should be taken into consideration:
1) Comparing year one release to year one release... year two release to year two release... etc... It makes little sense to me comparing XBox 360's second year of release to PS3's first year of release and so on. But I'm just a Statistical Analyst.
2) Take price into consideration. Getting 100,000 people to buy a pencil for $5 is a whole lot less impressive of a feat than getting 50,000 people to buy a pencil for $10. It is very likely that by lowering the price of the PS3, Sony would increase sales. This is just how statistics work. However, Sony isn't ONLY interested in getting tons of consoles into people's hands... they're also interested in their bottom-line. So, they play a balancing act between price and sales. It makes sense and is smart.
Of course, there are other factors to take into consideration, such as user satisfaction. If you make tons of money and get lots of sales but, in doing so, tarnish your image, you may be hurting yourself in the long run. The problem of making this mistake won't be apparent until much later in the future and, by then, it could be too late. But, the above two factors are the major ones. I notice a lot of Sony fan-boys tend to use these as excuses to further their agenda that Sony is the best company in the world (which I disagree with)... but, they've got their hobby I guess and fanboyism works out for them, so I will leave that one alone. This doesn't make the facts used any less of facts, or the logic any less logical... it just means some sound facts and wise logic is being used by some people who are little bit too into their brands, I guess.
Likewise, what Microsoft is doing is very smart. They came into this game a newbie and really showed the world their prowess as a company. Do I think they are obliterating Sony? No. They certainly killed Sony's domination, but I feel they are both on equal footing. Sony has been just about as successful during their first year of the PS3 as Microsoft was with the XBox 360. The same goes for year two for both consoles. This trend continues. So, really, Microsoft has done a great job from going to relative obscurity in the console market to be on equal footing with Sony in such a short period of time. Microsoft deserves that credit. But to suggest that this somehow reflects poorly on the PS3 boggles my mind.
The Wii is a different story. Clearly, sales-wise, the Wii is dominating. Profit-wise, they're dominating even more. However, due to the Wii being so distinctly different from the other consoles in game-play and style and market adoption, it would seem to me that Nintendo landed in a niche of their own. So, trying to claim that (as a result) the Wii is "better" because it has sold more would be like saying a toaster is better than a toaster oven because more toasters are sold. While this may be true, there are things you can do with a toaster oven that can't be done with a toaster. The two are purchased for different reasons, though the reasons are very similar and in the same genre.
But again, that's just my take if I put thought into it. Do I care? Not really. Why should I? Does it make the games more fun? Less fun? To me, the definition of a fan boy is someone who is so much of a fan, that they're obsessed. I'm not an obsessed fan of Sony, I just like playing games and most of the games I like are on the PS3. That's it. If the XBox 360 had all of the PS3's games and vice versa, maybe I would like the XBox 360 more. I suppose I could get used to the controller in time.
bob:
david, is that you?
Anyway:
"ooooow. Ok, now I see the caliber of whom I'm talking with and, at this point, let's just be safe about it and say you're right... you've always been right... and you will forever be right. You can go back to your UFO convention, now. :D
It's somehow biased if done for one company but not for another. You're biased in your definition of bias. That's neat. It's like illogical logic. It's very entertaining. Thanks for the exchange.
YOU FINALLY GOT IT! Congratulations!
Different companies are in different situations.
And now back to the grown-up talk. If the interviewer were doing an article titled, "The Mistakes Microsoft Has Made"... then, by the logic previously given, it would seem that it would be ok for a reporter to only ask questions about Microsoft's screw-ups."
If the article is "The Mistakes Microsoft as made", then it is perfectly fine.
But if the article was called "The Mistakes that made the 360 a failure" THEN it would be biased, because of obious false assumptions.
Your problem is, and i got that from your previous postings, that you dont want to accept THAT the PS3 is in a bad situation. You wrote about how you still have fun with the PS3 and all that...but as soon as you try to make personal beliefs into evident points of a discussion, you´re wrong.
Or, to make it really short, these are the three systems situations, from an industry standpoint:
- Wii: Great situation, is doing fantastic in all aspects
- 360: Okay situation, far from competing with the Wii, but was able to leave the former number 1 behind them and has great software support
- PS3: BAD situation. Selling worst, losing money for Sony, losing formerly exclusive key franchises.
And just for you: I didnt make up anything of that. But i also wont be able to give you a source. You can only start watching monthly NPD-threads and weekly Media-Create-threads. Then you will be able to get this knowledge. But dont say that someone isnt in a situation. They are.
I would draw this in crayon for you, but it's the Internet. So, here goes.
The 115th week of the PS3's existence took place this month.
In the 115th week of the PS3's existence, Sony sold approximately 150,000 PS3s.
In the 115th week of the XBox 360's existence, Microsoft sold approximately 115,000 XBox 360's.
Now, if you're good at comparing numbers you will see that more PS3s were bought when the PS3 was 115 weeks old than 360's were bought when the 360 was 115 weeks old.
So what logic are you using that implies that somehow the PS3 is doing worse?
Imagine the XBox 360 was a child born in November 2005 and the PS3 was a child born in November 2006.
Now imagine the PS3 is now a 2-year-old and the 360 is a 3-year-old. Are you really, in all seriousness, going to compare a 2-year-old to a 3-year-old and continually say there is something "wrong" with the development of the 2-year-old because their gross motor skills aren't quite comparable to that of the 3-year-old? If that's the case, then you have far more serious issues than could be addressed over the Internet.
If, however, you are intelligent enough to compare the 2-year-old's progress with the same milestones the 3-year-old had reached when she was also 2-years-old, then you will see the point I am making here. The 360 is ALWAYS going to be selling more than the PS3 because the 360 had a one year head-start. This doesn't reflect that the PS3 isn't developing well, it just reflects the difference in age.
Over the next year, the PS3 will sell roughly as many units as the 360 did during the previous year... and so on and so forth. So, if you think that the PS3 is on its way to the grave, you must also think the 360 is on its way to the grave... it'll just happen one year sooner.
However, I don't think the 360 is on its way to the grave... and I see both consoles as developing equally over their life-spans so far... so it stands to reason that the 360 will reach maturity first, followed by the PS3... then the 360 will die first, followed by the PS3.
In the meantime, Microsoft has only one console on the market... Sony continues to sell PS2s, gaining more and more users of the PlayStation brand.
Is Sony losing money? OF COURSE. They lose money with every console. So, the more they sell, the more the lose. It's a strategic move. During the 2nd year of the XBox 360, did Microsoft lose money on the consoles? Absolutely! They are both using the same strategies here. If you think that Sony losing money is a losing strategy, then you would admit that Microsoft has already been using the same losing strategy. But for some reason, you think that win Microsoft does it, it makes them a winner... and when Sony does it, they're tanking. You are, sir, the very definition of insane.
If you want to include Nintendo in these figures, brace yourself. In the 115th week of the Wii's life, they sold about 500,000 consoles. And Nintendo profits considerably from every console. Go figure.
The only things these statistics really prove is that Sony and Microsoft bet on the "next generation" market of powerful machines and high quality graphics. Nintendo decided to bet on the "next generation" market of ok-powered machines, ok-quality graphics, but ingenious controls. Nintendo won the bet. Sony and Microsoft lost their bets respectively. Microsoft just lost the bet first and Sony followed one year later.
If you want to provide facts that contradict what I'm saying and that don't just compare a 3-year-old to a 2-year-old at their differing ages, please do so. I'd be interested in knowing what facts you have.
And just for shits and giggles... let's just enter a fantasy world and make believe that the PS3 and 360 were born on the same day. Let's pretend. Now let's look at the figures. In the same week mentioned previously, there were about 81,000 PS3s sold and about 97,000 360's sold. Pretty good for 360, eh? But the Wii sold about 177,000. Now, if your definition of a console "dying" as selling less than their competitor, then I guess the 360 is dead and the Wii is the only winner. But if you think the Wii and 360 can co-exist, why don't you think the Wii, PS3, and 360 can all co-exist? Where is your arbitrary assumption that there is room for two consoles and not three. Or, if you want to get technical, room for three consoles and not four, since the PS2 is still selling. There were about 42,000 PS2s sold in the same week mentioned previously.
Again, you can say the PS3 is dying... that they're selling less and less... and that Sony is losing money until you're blue in the face. If you can't see past the nose on your face, then you must also believe the world will end in a month or so anyway, so who cares which console survived?
Alright, we can stop this discussion now.
Using aligned launch-times is what fanboys do. I´d love to see you post that exact same posting on neogaf. You think they would agree with you? Anyway, you can do that or not, our discussion is now over.
bye
And just now some posted a great summary of what im disucssing with you:
" Originally Posted by OuterWorldVoice:
Journalists MUST ask directive" questions. It is their job.
System wars aside, you have no clue what you're talking about. If a journalist lets the interviewee control the interview he is failing. The interviewer, no matter what the subject, should have a planned angle, ask pertinent questions, let the interviewee answer them and construct the factually accurate story around those answers. If the interviewee refuses to answer the questions, or tries to divert the subject at hand, the interviewer should bring it back around.
Frost/Nixon
Paxman/Anyone
Asking tough questions is the single greatest responsibility of a journalist - intrinsically linked with accurate fact checking. It does not matter one iota what the interviewer thinks of Xbox, or PS3, it only matters that the journalist has a firm grasp of the facts at hand. His questions indicate nothing to the contrary.
It comes down to the following very simple cliche:
Dog bites man is not newsworthy.
Man bites dog is newsworthy.
In this instance - and it has been Xbox red rings, or Nintendo 64 crash, or 3DO failure in the past - the story is te unexpected lack of success for the PS3.
That is news. Wii being tremendously successful is also news. Do you get it? Do you understand? Unexpected things are interesting. Expected things are not. Lots of expected things are not worth an interview. They're dull.
Stop confusing journalism with diplomacy or rocket science. Journalism is the art of disseminating accurate information and opinion in a readable and informatrive fashion. No more, no less.
Just because you disagree with the conclusions, or wish they were somehow different, doesn't mean they're wrong."
I'm not sure why I would care whether 12-year-olds on NEOGAF would agree with proper accounting methods. Work with the accounting dept at any corporation and you will understand that week 15 of one year is only ever compared to week 15 of the previous year... or February of one year is only ever compared to February of the previous year... or Q3 of one year is only ever compared to Q3 of the previous year. In business, it is generally well understood that there are cycles. The launch of a product is obviously going to have a spike. This spike is going to quickly taper off. Then, the sales are going to steadily climb with occasional spikes at price cuts, special promotions, marketing blitzes, the holidays, etc... So, when there is a need to forecast, or compare two products, it only ever makes sense to align launch times and to factor out the spikes. Without doing so is just failing at Statistics 101.
As for your article about Frost/Nixon, I agree with you and you proved my point. Thank you. And my point was specifically that Mr. Jaffe was being treated like Nixon. Mr. Jaffe is not on trial here. Nixon was. Here's a word to the wise, kid. Pick your battles or else you look like a baffoon. Keep in mind that if you ever want to work for a corporation one day that will expect you to know how to do anything other than flip burgers, they're going to do some research on you and interview you. These blog posts will still likely be available. They'll see your lack of basic logic and they won't hire you. And you're right. There's no point in this discussion anymore. I told you I wasn't interested in comparing consoles because I'm not interested in a nerd fight. I don't care about brands, am not a fan of any company, so I am not interested in your fanboy wars. You pulled so-called facts out of your arse and asked me to do the same, so I looked up some facts, used the same logic that any educated person would use, and you refuted it by saying that 12-year-olds would disagree with me. That pretty much ended the discussion.
Never saw a day coming where you would let a reported uprage you enough to look at this totally wrong. You should have been constructive and responded with what Sony is doing good and not worried about the slanted questions. Then after all the game press calling you out on this you pull the video. Wow Jaffe the day is a sad day when you totally lose composure. Plus the 360 is made by MSN, but that isn't the point, you should have roasted the reporter about good facts for Sony
Never saw a day coming where you would let a reported uprage you enough to look at this totally wrong. You should have been constructive and responded with what Sony is doing good and not worried about the slanted questions. Then after all the game press calling you out on this you pull the video. Wow Jaffe the day is a sad day when you totally lose composure. Plus the 360 is made by MSN, but that isn't the point, you should have roasted the reporter about good facts for Sony
Wow... Anonymous has made me see the light of day. Clearly, everyone should just take it up the arse like Anonymous and not have enough passion to stand up for what you believe in and, instead, just let the media drive the rest of the world. In fact, let's just elect the media as President... no dictator of the universe. We should all, after all, be humble and bow down to everyone who is asking questions because, after all, questions are harmless. Does Anonymous really like to take it up the arse? Who knows? It doesn't matter. The answer is more important than the question, and slant doesn't exist, and propaganda has never meant anything. Let's just call emotions facts and facts are just fiction. Why not believe nothing and just live like drones? That's the Anonymous way.
Bob, Let me start by saying you truely are a total fool that should put some time into learning not to be sensitive to what everyone says. Thats what is wrong with the world today, but I'm not getting on that tangent. First I love how you can't be grown up and keep jumping to taking thing up the arse? Don't give us your fantasy arse ramming sessions and have a grown up conversation. Now that that is out of the way lets talk about what I was saying. No where did I say sit there and take it, but this guy was just trying to get someone who is know for saying things off the cuff to do that. This reporter even tho stupid for doing this tactic, made it work in his favor. Now other blogs and game sites are talking about how defensive Jaffe got, while not really thinking the situation through. Now Jaffe is going to have a sitdown and answer this nobodies questions on a podcast just boosting this reporters noteriety while just making Jaffe look more reactive. What I was trying to say is that there is always going to be idiots out there that are going to say stupid things like this to just get reactions, if you play into the situation then you just help them out, if Jaffe had just ignored this reporter he would have just faded into the sunset where biased people should be. I'll have to borrow from the guys over at 1up on this on when they said that this reporter probably just pulled from a roledex of names and this wasn't a focused attack. While I don't feel this is a Microsoft initiative attack on Sony, I feel this was a reporter with a quick list of Sony developers that tend to be reactive like Jaffe has shown us over the years and just went on a searching campaign to see who would respond first. People it looks like we have us a winner. By the way if Jaffe is reading this, by know means do I dislike you. I find a lot of your thoughts on things to be very interesting once you have had time to think about the subject, but times like these really hurts your image and pushes you back into that stupid Cliffy B category.
Anonymous, Let me start by saying you truely are a total fool that should put some time into learning not to be [sic] sensitive to what I say. Thats [sic] what is wrong with the world today, but I'm not getting on that tangent. First I love how you can't be grown up and keep jumping to taking thing up the arse? Don't give us your fantasy arse ramming sessions and have a grown up conversation. Now that that is out of the way lets [sic] talk about what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the guy wasn't just trying to get someone who is know [sic] for saying things off the cuff to do that. This reporter, stupid for doing this tactic, had a motive; to make it work in his favor. Now other 12-year-old journalists and ad-farms are talking about how defensive Jaffe got, while not really thinking the situation through. Now Jaffe is going to have a sitdown [sic] and answer this nobodies [sic] questions on a podcast just boosting this reporters [sic] noteriety [sic] while just making Jaffe look more reactive. What I was trying to say is that there is always going to be idiots out there that are going to say stupid things like this to just get reactions, if you play into the situation then you just help them out, if Jaffe had just ignored this reporter he would have just faded into the sunset where biased people should be. I'll have to borrow from the guys over at 1up on this on when they said that this reporter probably just pulled from a roledex of names and this wasn't a focused attack. While I don't feel this is a Microsoft initiative attack on Sony, I feel this was a reporter with a quick list of Sony developers that tend to be reactive like Jaffe has shown us over the years and just went on a searching campaign to see who would respond first. People it looks like we have us a winner. By the way if Jaffe is reading this, by know [sic] means do I dislike you. I find a lot of your thoughts on things to be very interesting once you have had time to think about the subject, but times like these really hurts your image and pushes you back into that stupid Cliffy B category.
So, it sounds like we agree on a lot, so I'm not sure why you've got your panties in a bunch. My point was simply that I disagree with you on whether or not Jaffe should have responded or not. The popular reaction has usually been to say nothing. Unfortunately, for years, this hasn't worked. Once kept quiet, the 12-year-old blogging community talks about how so-and-so got put in their place and couldn't think of a come back, etc, etc... Then, suddenly, in this Internet-playground we live in today, 12-year-olds end up getting the better of Jaffe because they got their point across and Jaffe was silent.
So, do you think that every time a 12-year-old gives his 12-year-old opinion, Jaffe should be silent? What if a 40-year-old gives a 12-year-old opinion? Should Jaffe be silent, still? Should Jaffe only wait to speak when he is approached by a 40-year-old giving a 40-year-old opinion? Why? Why not?
Jaffe can give his opinion any time he wants... to whomever he wants... without worrying about what 12-year-olds think about his opinion. It's a free world. Intelligent people need to speak more, not less. David is a smart guy. He put the 12-year-old in his place. Then, he showed true character by still taking the time to sit down with this 12-year-old and give him the time of day.
The smart people recognize this. They don't think any less of Jaffe. They saw this 12-year-old for what he was and congratulated David for setting him straight. The only people who still have their panties in a bunch are the 12-year-olds. And in this world of "ooooohhhh... he said such-and-such..." conspiracy nuts, this is what drives the market. The 12-year-olds get excited. They want to read more and more about what other 12-year-olds agree with their opinion. Then, they click ads and keep the economy moving.
Well Bob, its funny that I really don't think we are on the same page. Let me start by saying that I am a 30yr old gamer. You immediately take the point of this reporter being a 12yr old, but while I agree the tactics are something of a 12yr old mentality, he actually got the response of someone much older to fall down to his level. Frankly I don't care what Jaffe thinks of my opinion, cause why should he. My opinion is less important then my comments hopefully help Jaffe think in the future before responding to such unimportant things. You state that this "12 year old" reporter which I really think is a stupid statement, but he gets his opinion across and Jaffe doesn't. Well the opinion would have never been known if Jaffe didn't react. Thats my point, this reporter would have just faded off, or picked the next quick to react name in the industry to cause a stir. What I'm trying to get across to you before you go into lala land again like the end of your last post is that Jaffe was the one who put this reporter on a pedestal, when easily he could have just thrown in the trash where the reporter belonged. As for all the "blog o sphere" rants you went into, that is rediculous to even go there.
@Anonymous,
In order to think that David's response "fell down" to the level of a reporter who acts 12, you must believe that Jaffe's response is that of a 12-year-old mentality. I disagree. It is very much like everything else he posts. If you are simply of the opinion that Jaffe's posts are of a 12-year-old mentality, I would again disagree... but then you couldn't really say that his response "fell down" to the reporter's level... he just met his match, you must think. Please, though, if you do not think Jaffe's response was 12-year-old-like, or if you think that David's response was "unlike him," please correct me. I can only make deductions from what limited feedback you give me.
You say the "opinion" of this reporter would have never been known if Jaffe didn't react. Maybe on an individual basis, that is true. But, how people perceive Sony these days is based on the collective of 12-year-old comments like the one the journalist made. In other words, one 12-year-old won't make much of a difference, but the world of 12-year-olds sure is convincing some of those in the main-stream media to believe they represent logical thought. This has been happening and it's scary. What next? "Wise" investors start listening to the rantings of the blogs of those with a 12-year-old mentality, and start dumping stocks of Sony thinking the PS3 is on its way out? Scary, but quite feasible.
So, it was about time that someone with a popular soap box got up and spoke out against this individual loudly enough to know that they don't represent the world, nor do they represent the intelligent... they only represent their own loud-mouthed clique of arm-chair analysts who wouldn't know a trend-line, let alone what the slope of a curve means, from a hole in the ground.
You don't give a whole lot of credit to the "blog-o-sphere," but in my years I have seen first-hand how the media has gotten dumber and dumber each day and in order to fill the void, they have been recycling crap found on the Internet. Following this, we end up with the rants of those with 12-year-old mentalities being regurgitated as virtual science in the news that the common person trusts.
I remember the Y2K scare. News reporters across the globe were saying such things as, "This could affect your microwave oven." How bizarre. Most microwaves don't even need to know what the year is to operate correctly.
Do a search for Peter Schiff Was Right on YouTube. It shows how Peter Schiff knew we were heading into trouble with the economy, he knew the housing market would collapse, etc, etc... Now watch the fact that he is outnumbered by these analysts... these "brainiacs"... these people belittled Peter Schiff... laughed at him... dismissed him. And then, it turned out, he was dead on. Do you find these people are now out of a job for being such bad analysts? Is the world now listening to Peter Schiff? No. Most have never heard of him (but they sure have heard of Ben Stein).
And this is my point. The Peter Schiffs of the world need to keep speaking up... to keep shining a light on the insane people who are trying to run the show... in time, people will learn to trust the intelligent more... and the rantings of the 12-year-olds less. By keeping silent, the only people TO trust are the ones shouting loudly enough to be heard.
@Bob I don't think Jaffe's responses was a 12yr old response. I feel Jaffe for the most part knows what he is talking about when it comes to Sony. He just responding is what I felt brung him down to the level. I would have rather seen him maybe doing a post discussing the current generation of consoles on a level playing field and making good comparisons between all of them. The reporter would have never needed to be discussed and the same point could have been gotten across. So far we seem to be getting on the same ground except for the second half of your post. Your giving a lot of credit to internet post about Sony's failures. Sony has sold a ton because it was marketed as the best Blu-ray player on the market. In some cases it still is even though there are cheaper alternatives now. The second portion is the internal software, compared to Xbox Live it is still way behind and needs a lot of work to come close. Rumors of voice add in is still swirling, but until basic features like that and a headset with every console its hard to match Live. Then we finally come to games. While games should have been something that the biggest sales of last generation should come easily too, they dropped the ball during the first part of the PS3 life. The console has had a game here and there, but overall they let it slip because they weren't willing to pay these companies to stay exclusive, or to be put on their system at all. Plus the developers weren't getting the assistance with the first round of games to help them produce them quick enough or on the same quality as their 360 counter part. I feel this year is going to be the year that Sony starts to have a real good lineup of software to compare to the 360. The year has already started with a big game that came out of nowhere with Flower. Everyone is discussing this game like its the next braid.
I do find it a little dishearting though that you feel someone like Jaffe needs to carry Sony on his shoulders to correct the mistakes they have made in the generation of console. One its not his place, two while I think its unlikely, but with this economic cycle most developers are looking to cross platform to recoup their money. So if Jaffe's company had to go this route to guarantee their return why would he prop Sony? Lastly Micrsoft started off just as shaky, if not worse then Sony because of the failure rate of the 360 and they used Major Nelson's PR to help spin the info back in their favor. Sony started a blog too, a long time after the launch and I have to say I hardly ever go their. They havn't made a pressence like MS did with Major Nelson. This is part of Sony's problem, they put out the object needed, but thats usually it. Once the item is out their they need to put more attention and work on the object (i.e. the marketing website)to make people want to hit it up for the latest info, or possible place to discuss or question topics. Don't get me wrong Microsoft isn't perfect, if so we wouldn't have gotten the poor quality consoles in the first place, but marketing they are pretty good at. Thats why I have a hard time thinking its Jaffe's responsibility to step up and cover Sony's short comings in PR. One final note, I don't think problems would have came up with the PS3 if there hadn't been internal personel issues at Sony. I think Phil Harrison had spent his time trying to get the console to market with something comparable to the 360 and Live. The console was way overpowered and costly, but did the job. The software is where they hit a wall because MSFT had a several year jump on them in development of a infrastructure. Home was their idea of a competition to Live and not everyone their felt the same way. Then after delay after delay internal restructuring happened to the point of Phil leaving to Atari and we end up in a endless cycle of Home in Beta testing and not really filling the gap of what Live is. XMB was already there and what should have been the focus instead of Home and could have been just as good if not better with some work. Sony's biggest failure is they were all not on the same page which has led them to a console that is overpriced that will be hard to bring it down to the level of the Wii/360. The software will get there one day, but longer they wait the longer it hurts them. Plus the loss Sony is taking from not getting the consoles and attach rates as returns are really starting to suffer for them. Thats why you are seeing Sony for the first time on finacial shaky ground cause the economic status of the US is killing the possibility of someone going out and paying the high price of a PS3. So instead of blaming the internet for Sony's decline, maybe their uppermanagement should be called into question, because they are ones who have put them behind and taken them from #1 console to #3.
@Anonymous,
Maybe it needs to be recognized (again) that this is Mr. Jaffe's personal blog. So if you're looking for him discussing the current generation of consoles on a level playing field and making good comparisons between all of them... maybe you're in the wrong place.
He was approached by a journalist, the journalist had an obvious slant in his line of questioning, this bothered David (as it would me, too, since I have no respect for people who represent an industry which should be unbiased but who are quickly replacing the public's opinion with their own), and he posted about his opinion on his personal blog.
I give a lot of credit to the otherwise pointless Internet chatter because the majority of the consumers with heavy wallets are people who are relatively clueless. They used AOL back in the 90's only because their neighbor's kid set them up with it. Their neighbor's kid set them up with it because he knew these people wouldn't comprehend anything beyond AOL. These people are now just figuring out how to use "The Google" and look at the "popular opinion" before deciding to enter a new scary market.
I don't know how many people of this classification I have come across that were concerned about entering the Blu-ray age NOT because of HDDVD and NOT because of the VHS Beta-max wars... but because they hear buzz on the Internet about how "Blu-ray is dead."
They don't know any better. To explain to them to "ignore what you read on the Internet" is going too far... but it's the truth. Take Wikipedia, for example. Wikipedia IS a good resource. It IS a good place to find information. A LOT of the information is factual. However, there are CORRECT ways to use Wikipedia and INCORRECT ways. It involves a degree of understanding about the way things work to get this. For instance, there was a case where someone edited a Wikipedia article with bad information. A "journalist" from a reputable source took this bad information and wrote an article about it, as if it were fact. Then, when the Wikipedia overlords asked for a citation to back up this bad information, the user cited the article from the reputable source. The circle was complete, and this information was now accepted as fact... both by Wikipedia and by the "reputable media."
Again, this is the power of the Internet. Don't underestimate this power. It's more powerful than the crap being spewed out by the news media during the Y2K era.
As for Sony and exclusives, it's much trickier than simply "paying" a publisher for exclusivity. Think of it this way. The XBox 360 was already out for a year. It was already in a lot of consumers' hands and already had developers familiar with the architecture. Then Sony opens its wallet for publishers and says, "Publish exclusively on our new and not fully proven system. Don't publish on that 'other system which has been out for a year.' Don't you think these publishers are going to expect quite a bit of money to go along with this plan?
At some point, Sony has to be smart. They can't just accept "any amount of money is OK." They have to draw a line. They drew the line and the publishers didn't go for it. It just makes sense. I'm sure SOME publishers are kicking themselves over this decision, as some game types just don't sell as well to 360 fans as they do to PS3 fans. From the publisher's perspective, they had to make a calculated gamble in order to play the marketing game. And now, you can see things swinging back in the other direction.
Also, I don't feel Jaffe needs to "carry Sony on his shoulders." I only feel that Jaffe should speak his personal opinion on his personal blog, and this is exactly what he has done.
Also, you seem to have a pretty strong opinion on Sony's marketing strategies. Something to keep in mind, however, is that marketing isn't about just dumping a bunch of money out in the world to get good PR. It's about a return on those marketing dollars. If Sony dumps $200 million in marketing only to increase profits by $100 million, it was simply a bad marketing move. At some point, if their existing fan-base and word-of-mouth advertising is more powerful than traditional marketing, then it only makes sense to keep riding this wave and save their marketing dollars... while letting Microsoft hemorrhage their marketing dollars.
Put another way, Microsoft has been marketing a whole lot better than Sony... and yet, year-for-year, Sony has been keeping up pace with Microsoft. So, the lesson is, Sony's doing pretty darn good for not marketing as well as Microsoft. And perhaps their marketing department has learned that there are times to save money and not waste it.
As for problems within the company... every company has problems. What's funny is... when the company does really well, people say things like, "Despite these internal problems that almost prevented the product from making it to market, they dominated. What a wonderful rags to riches story." However, when the company does poorly, they say "They failed because they had internal problems, etc..." It's bogus.
Saying that they went from #1 to #3 takes into account the Wii, which isn't practical. Doing this with the 360 would be like saying, "They went from #2 to #2." which would imply they didn't move a bit. Since the Wii is beating them both, they both equally lost this battle. So, the only real comparison between MS and Sony in regards to consoles is the fact that Sony went from #1 to #2, which isn't as huge of a leap. Likewise, Microsoft moved from #2 to #1... impressive but, again, not a huge leap. The reason Microsoft's #1 became #2 (again) and Sony's #2 became #3 was because of the newcomer on the market (the Wii) and its adoption rate by previously non-gamers.
So now, when you look at Sony moving down one notch and Microsoft moving up one notch, the reality is pretty simple. Sony released one year later than Microsoft. That was the deciding factor. Look at any trend line that jumps up sharply (due to early adopters) then drops back down, then steadily climbs from here, with occasional spikes from price drops or holiday sales. Now, duplicate this trend line EXACTLY and lay them on top of each other. Exactly the same, right? Now shift one to the left by a year. Wow, suddenly it looks like the one which released later is constantly playing catch-up. OF COURSE. One started running a year sooner than the other.
That's why it is frustrating to me, personally, to see people who know nothing about statistics spewing out bad information on the Internet. The wide-range of the typical audience also knows little of statistics, so they take this information to heart. In the end, you have the blind leading the blind and the minority who see the truth are overshadowed by the ones who are completely clueless.
So, again... your opinion is that Sony didn't do too well of a job marketing-wise. My opinion is that Sony is doing an equally well job as Microsoft. The fact that they released a year later means they will forever be playing catch-up with the year-long head-start Microsoft has been enjoying. This doesn't mean that Microsoft is sitting pretty, however... because whatever benefits Microsoft reaps one year, Sony will reap the next year. And for every stumble Microsoft makes, Sony stands to catch up. Also, Microsoft's console will be aging sooner in the eyes of the consumer. Worse for Microsoft, they're competing not with ONE console of Sony's, but TWO (the PS2 is still selling and new games for the PS2 are still coming out.)
So, I see Microsoft and Sony as equals this round. The Wii may have been a one-hit wonder this time around by Nintendo. Great for them, but when it comes time for "the next generation" they could easily fall prey to Sega-like failure.
The journalist obviously saw Sony as a complete failure, practically on their way out, with Microsoft dominating the world. I think this is a severely skewed opinion, which is a result of not understanding basic statistics.
Then, instead of only asking Jaffe good questions, they first stated "the opinion of the Internet" which is about as equivalent of citing Wikipedia as a source, then followed up with a slanted question. Jaffe's only response could have been silence (making it appear as though he agreed with the slant and had nothing more to add), a rebuttal to the lies (which would have simply made it look like he was hyping up Sony), or a reaming of such "journalists" to ever have paychecks. Just like it is time to replace some bad teachers in this world with good teachers, it is also about time we start replacing bad journalists with good journalists... not just ones who can ask "hard-hitting questions"... but those who also have an inkling of understanding in the field they are talking about.
Well once again i think your missing the point. You point out that this is Jaffe's personal blog. I agree this isn't the coporate blog or is it one focused solo on the games industry. Jaffe can say whatever he wants here if he feels like it. He leaves the comments open for response because he is looking for some type of feedback or outlet for people to respond to his topics. The problem is the journalist contacted him to respond on their blog for input, but instead of Jaffe just answering it for the reporter or just blowing it off, he decided to respond here by saying the journalist was being biased and him jumping to the support of Sony which everyone knows that he will since he is a developer for them, what person in their right mind wouldn't. Like I said before and I'll say again, posting this reporters questions and dealing with this reporter is only giving merit to the reporter and allowing him to get what he wants out of the situation. Regardless if Jaffe puts him/her in their place the reporter has gotten a response that they can twist however on their blog. That is the point you keep missing.
As for the console race, in the end it is a 3 console race. Just because one console released earlier doesn't mean they have an advantage, if that was true how has Nintendo became the console leader. If you want to get to statistics then you should look at the numbers of consoles sold period. I'm not saying that Sony/MSFT/Nintendo are better then one another by any means, they all have their good points and bad points, but in the end, what makes them the leader is the sales. If you don't beleive that then go ask Peter Moore where the Dreamcast is today. All three consoles had the choices they needed to make to get the sales to be popular, but in the end Nintendo made a simple control, poor graphics, game lacking system while appealing to the casual market. MSFT made a social network gaming system that had stolen exclusive games and made mulitple platform games a norm had a failure rate out of this world. Sony hit the market with a solid system that was well built and stable. They introduced and took the market of high definition on disc. While spending time pushing the Hi-def war they slowed on maintaining exclusive games, with poor online and interface support to the point of pushing home a savior.
In the end all three systems had good points and bad, but that didn't stop Nintendo to come out near Sony to pull ahead and become the highest selling console of this generation. That left the number two position to MSFT and Sony to fight over and currently MSFT is there. Yes MSFT had a year start, but if you want to get to statistics and trends, then with MSFT and Sony going back and forth month after month of selling more then the other MSFT will still come out on top. In order for Sony to take the lead, they would have to start selling more the MSFT and continue on that trend upward to catch up on sales. The only other way would be for tomorrow for MSFT to stop selling the 360 and let Sony continue to sell and that isn't going to happen. Even if MS announces 360 part 2 or whatever they name it, the 360 will still continue to sell like the xbox before the 360 did for a while. Most people at this point would throw in that Sony is on a 10yr plan, well yes while they may stick to this and get more milage then the 360 or wii since of having better hardware they will eventually put theirselves at a disadvantage once again. Lets look at the numbers, according to Sony if they stick to a timeline of 10 yrs Sony will release their next console in 2016. If MS and Nintendo stick to the usual time period of 5 years console life, the next console for MSFT would be in 2010/2011 and Nintendo would be in 2011/2012. Even at latest that is 4 years that both consoles would have a head start on Sony. Now either one of two things will happen, Sony will drop the 10yr stat and just take the PR blowback from customer complaining that why pay so much for a console if they are gonna have to turn around a get another console, or they will stick it out and add periperhals/updates to tide everyone over. Sony is currently in a place where this decision could become a dire moment for Sony. The reason being is Sony is taking some of the largest losses ever for their company, their stock continues to be hit from all sides, not just the console, but from music, video, etc. The question is can Sony afford to let a company like Nintendo possibly come out with a console that is similar to 360 or PS3 and actually pull not just the casual gamers, but the hardcore gamers too? That will leave MSFT and Sony fighting again for 2nd place. While I don't want to be doom and gloom, I just wanted to show what kind of position Sony could be in because of the current choices they have made.
I wanted to discuss the the comment you made on Blu-ray. I find your comment to be off tilt since the majority of middle America either one are just finding out about Blu-ray or don't even have a clue about it. I don't know how many people I have seen on the internet, or talked to in real life that think the Blu-ray disc is a better DVD disc that can be played in their old DVD player. The death of Blu-ray you speak of is high level geeks that are referring to the end of BR by digital downloads. While I agree that this will out do BR in the future, it will be a long time and even then BR will still exist, hell DVD will probably still exist. Even Sony has been commented to saying that the next generation of Playstation will have a all digital download system for the games, but how does that effect BR? Not much or they wouldn't say something like this since BR is Sony's.
And finally to say Nintendo's console is a one hit wonder, I don't really get that since Nintendo has had the NES, SNES, Gamecube, and now the Wii. Those don't look like one hit wonders to me, plus they did good enough to outlast Sega.
@Anonymous,
I'm not missing any point. I am reading your point. I am understanding your point. I am merely disagreeing with your point. For example, you can keep saying that you enjoy eating dog crap, but this isn't going to make it taste good to me.
You believe that by posting this reporters questions and dealing with this reporter, Jaffe is only giving merit to the reporter and allowing him to get what he wants out of the situation. I disagree. You might disagree with me disagreeing, which is fine... you're entitled to your opinion. But, I don't need you to reiterate your point, because I'm just not agreeing with it.
Just as easily as the reporter can twist Mr. Jaffe's response around, the reporter can also twist Mr. Jaffe's silence around as well. For instance, I could ask you if you are a hermaphrodite. If you say, "No." I can say that it is clear that hermaphrodites are either in denial, or too embarrassed to admit it. If you don't respond at all, I can say "Your silence is the clear answer to that question."
Saying that there is a "race" and then saying that "just because one started running the race first" doesn't give it an advantage is completely missing logic. It clearly does IF the measurement of "winning" is to only compare one moment in time with the exact same moment in time between all involved. It would be no different than you and me running a physical race and I start running 10 minutes before you. To compare where *I* am 20 minutes into the race with where YOU are 20 minutes into the race is patently unfair and would not show who is the faster runner. It would only show that I had a 10 minute head start. To make sense of this situation, you would want to compare how far I had run after 20 minutes of running compared to how far you had run after 20 minutes of running. This would show a true comparison.
In the case of the PS3, XBox 360, and Wii... when comparing actual release times, the Wii is still the clear winner. Then, the PS3 and XBox 360 are roughly equally matched. The fact that Nintendo has become the clear console winner is because they did SOOO well, that they actually surpassed the other two in the current time-frame.
To put it into perspective, imagine you and I and David were running. You started first... then Mr. Jaffe and I started 10 minutes later. I run about the same speed as you, so you are always 10 minutes ahead of me. However, David runs so quickly that he not only bolts ahead of me... but also bolts past you. So, even though you had your 10 minute head start, David still wins. Since you and I run at the same speed, I will never catch up to you or pass you. In order for me to catch up to you or pass you, I would need to run faster than you.
If you are in a position in life where you may one day have the opportunity to take a class involving statistics or forecasting or accounting, I would highly recommend it. I would love for you to understand this concept one day.
I have to give you props. You said: "In the end all three systems had good points and bad, but that didn't stop Nintendo to come out near Sony to pull ahead and become the highest selling console of this generation. That left the number two position to MSFT and Sony to fight over and currently MSFT is there. Yes MSFT had a year start, but if you want to get to statistics and trends, then with MSFT and Sony going back and forth month after month of selling more then the other MSFT will still come out on top. In order for Sony to take the lead, they would have to start selling more the MSFT and continue on that trend upward to catch up on sales." [sic]
My God, it's like you suddenly understood the concept of statistics and comparisons that I have been saying all along. Amazing. What you said right there is spot on and is absolutely accurate. In order for Sony to ever pass Microsoft in console sales consistently month after month, they would essentially need to sell consoles FASTER than Microsoft ever did, in order to close the gap of the lead that Microsoft had as a result of releasing one year sooner. This is the same concept of the people running. In order for me to catch up to you, I would need to run faster than you for a long enough period of time to close the gap between us, due to your 10-minute head-start. If, instead, I always run at the same speed as you, you will always be 10 minutes ahead of me. If Sony, for instance, happens to reach the same monthly rate of console sales as Microsoft after 10 years, it will mean that Sony will have reached that rate of sales in one year less time than it took Microsoft.
Then you said: "The only other way would be for tomorrow for MSFT to stop selling the 360 and let Sony continue to sell and that isn't going to happen."
...or, if Microsoft's console sales slow down, or do not keep up with Sony's accelerated growth...
As for Sony's 10-year-plan, here's the thing. If Microsoft and Nintendo come out with consoles after 5 years, then it doesn't really make sense to compare consoles anymore. i.e., you shouldn't wait until PS4 to compare it to Nintendo or Microsoft's next console. At that point, it will be Microsoft's new console versus the PS3 still. The other thing to keep in mind is that console sales accelerate over time. The amount sold in the second year are more than the first, etc, etc... Given this, the PS3 will still be beating Microsoft's next console once it is right out of the gate.
Also, Microsoft would need to make a console that is leaps and bounds above what the PS3 is capable of in order to really compete. However, we are pretty close to the point where people don't care much more about graphics quality or sound quality or speed. The Nintendo Wii proves this. So, Microsoft would be taking a HUGE gamble on their next console, while Sony would continue to ride on the PS3.
Furthermore, the PS3 will be profitable by then... and Microsoft would have to release a console that loses money for them. So, this makes the game even LARGER.
Nintendo will continue to play the casual gaming market game and will do well. Microsoft will have a hard time trying to out-do Sony in the high-def gaming market. So, by the next generation, Microsoft is going to have the hardest time. They would need to either compete directly with the Wii and move backwards into the casual gaming market, or would need to do something wholly unique... like maybe make the next XBox a full blown PC with the latest flavor of Windows.
Also, my Blu-ray comment was directed to those who knew what Blu-ray was and pays attention to these things, but don't understand enough about the Internet to know that the loudest ones on the Internet are not necessarily the smartest ones. Otherwise, I agree... the rest of America is still catching up and are blindly following in the footsteps of the path created by the early adopters.
Also, the death of Blu-ray due to digital downloads will only take place when there is a standard for digital downloads, true ownership (re-downloading, etc...), transfer between providers, etc... Until this happens, there will be too many people who will be afraid to get their entire catalog only through Amazon Unbox or Sony PSN Store... or XBox Live... etc, etc, etc... without ever being sure they can decide to switch providers and still keep their purchased movies, or re-download their movies if they have a hard drive crash... or watch the movies on their TV... or their PC at home... or their PC at work. All of these things are possible with physical media and will be expected to be possible with downloads by the masses.
And, I didn't mean the Wii was a one-hit wonder for Nintendo themselves. I know they have had successful consoles. I was a proud owner of the original Nintendo Entertainment System when I was a kid. What I meant is that they hit a particular niche that was untouched by the other consoles. Everyone kept focusing on increasing bits... increasing graphics... increasing features... etc, etc, etc... Nintendo got caught up with this same notion. Then, out of nowhere, they pulled a trick out of their hat with the Wii and virtually created a whole new market. Suddenly, the elderly were buying consoles... families were putting consoles in the living rooms... hospitals and physical therapists were providing consoles to patients... etc, etc, etc... They created the one-hit wonder known as "gaming that exercises your body." I don't believe anyone else can dethrone them from this... but I don't think Nintendo can "outdo" the Wii in the same way the Wii outdid the others. Sure, they could come out with a Wii with PS3-like graphics, and it will sell well... and a certain group of original Wii owners will upgrade... but unless they keep a cheaper more casual system for those who aren't so hard-core, they may start losing their large base to the other consoles quickly.
@bob well, you may read my point, but you never really understand my point. The problem with yourself, is a problem I have with any person who are fanboys. You fall into the Sony fanboy column. The problem with this is fanboys tend to put a twist on anything they are viewing through the tinted glasses of their fanboy idol. By saying Jaffe being quite would allow the reporter to spin stuff however is really doubting Jaffe's presence in this industry. While Jaffe is known for TM and GOW, thats more then most and those were such homeruns for those consoles that it puts him in another league compared to most. The little jabs you take in trying to pop shots in reworded questions make me laugh cause I tells me who I'm dealing with. In the end I know you never can teach a fanboy new tricks, just endless loyalty to their idol. As for statistics and my education I'm secure with the college degree I have and don't see a reason to spend time measuring "E-Penis" with you.'
As for this console race or the virtual race you conjured up I really laugh thinking that you have to place blame at MSFT or Nintendos door for coming out ahead of Sony. Noone told Sony to delay jumping in and trying to take over. Plus, why was it possible for Nintendo to come from behind? They didn't have to throw out a $600 concole to take the lead. They did good marketing, while making a console that appealed to the biggest audience. No one told Sony they couldn't do that, nor did anyone tell MSFT not to either. They chose their place and thats where they are at. As for Sony being profitable, maybe by 2016 the console will start being profitable, but in the process they will be compared to the next versions of Wii and 360 and the PS3 can't hold them off. Who says Wii/MSFT has to do it with pure horsepower. What about controls, what about new interfacing, what about a new way to integrate into your home media system. Lets look at the past for examples. When the PS2 and xbox where coming near an end, people were expecting the next consoles to come out in glorious videos better then before, but the next generation started with Social gaming with Xbox Live. This changed how things were done and will be done for a long time. People then settled on this new way of gaming and still expected the next improvement to be graphics, but what happens, the Wii comes out taking a step back graphically to only have fresh controls that hooks a new market, which is one of the highest growths in gaming has ever seen. Then we receive the PS3 which has better graphics, but not enough to real change the game. While no doubt graphics will continue to get better and may change if 3D happens (god help us all), but the main changes we are going to see has nothing to do with the looks. This is where the console makers will have to show what they are made of and think outside that box to grab the marketshare. In 2016 Wii and MSFT are on their next consoles thinking outside that box and Sony is still playing with Home and the PS3 we will see Sony fall further and further into that third place, because at that point it won't be a console in third place, it will be a company advancement being in third place. If you want any indicators to help, Nintendo and MSFT entertainment divisions are both profitable currently, but Sony is the odd man out on this field.
Sincerely
Jaffe's Blog Troll ;p
@Anonymous,
If you want your definition of a "fanboy" to be "someone who isn't a Microsoft fanboy" then that is your prerogative. But by that definition, you believe that everyone in the world is a "fanboy". You must be a fan of Bush's "you're either with us, or against us" without believing there are shades of grey in between.
The reality of it is... I think Microsoft, for being a late-coming to the console market, has done extremely well. They managed to enter the market and match the success of Sony within two console iterations while others (Sega) who were at the top of the game quickly vanished. Nintendo struggled for a bit, then came back with a vengeance. Sony had originally made a powerful move against Sony and has remained strong ever since.
So, I don't necessarily have any loyalties to one or the other, but all three. I just enjoy video games... I grew up on the stuff... and this is the era where video games are as viable of a market as movies, so these are good times for gamers.
If you feel that because I disagree with you, that I must not understand you, then that is also your prerogative. That's not the way I think, but that's just me.
I am not putting a twist on anything. Instead, it is you who are twisting basic concepts of statistics. You fail to recognize the science that anyone could recognize, and that I well believe you could understand... but you either don't want to, or refuse to. This is simple stuff that everyone is taught in schools, etc... Ask any accountant why they would compare Jan '09 to Jan '08 instead of Jan '09 to Jun '08. Ask any statistician what the slope of a curve tells them about the rate of acceleration. I thought my analogies were simple enough for you to see the truth for what it is, but these analogies either aren't simplistic enough for you, or you are just incapable of learning.
If I tried to make things simpler, imagine that in 2008 you were given $1 and I was given nothing. Then, in 2009, you were given $2 and I was given $1. Next, in 2010, you were given $4 and I was given $2. In 2011, you were given $8 and I was given $4. Finally, in 2012, you were given $16 and I was given $8. Each and every year (excluding the first year, because I was given nothing) you were given twice as much as me. So, to those who are only comparing dollars to dollars, you are always earning twice as much as me. However, if someone asked a different question... how quickly is your income growing and how quickly is my income growing, everyone would see that your income doubles from year to year... and my income doubles from year to year. Seem odd? I keep increasing my income by two-fold on a yearly basis and you keep increasing your income by two-fold on a yearly basis. So, essentially, we are both growing our incomes at the same rate. Even though, if you only looked at 2010 compared to 2010, it would only appear that you're always making twice as much as I am. If someone tried to explain this situation... they would say, "it's simple... they're both increasing their income at the same rate, but one started doing so one year sooner." And that's exactly my point. I'm not "twisting facts"... nor are you "twisting facts." We are both representing the facts correctly. The difference is, you think that "growth" matters in that a 3-year-old boy is bigger than a 2-year-old boy, and I don't. To me, growth (or strength) is a rate. It is based on a differential. The slope of the curve, so to speak. Sony and Microsoft have roughly the same slope, but Microsoft's curve starts one year sooner. If you want to say that Microsoft somehow "wins" the game of "selling more"... then I agree with you, they are selling more. But I disagree with you that this means anything in terms of strength. Microsoft has probably sold more computer mice than they've sold XBox 360s, but this doesn't mean that computer mice win and game consoles lose. You're comparing apples to oranges.
But if you want to arrange the rules of the game so that Microsoft wins, then it sounds more like you are a Microsoft fanboy. In the only game that a statistician would care about (the only game that a business would focus on,) Microsoft isn't winning... Sony isn't winning. They're about dead even. The Wii is slaughtering both. If anything, this would make me sound like a Nintendo fan boy. But, honestly, I'm not that into the Wii. We've got one. My son likes it (not as much as his XBox 360) and my wife enjoys it... I've played around with it a bit, but it just doesn't suit my tastes for every day gaming.
A true Sony fanboy would instead try to twist facts to show that Sony is somehow beating Microsoft... like, they'll say "yeah, but if Sony's console cost the same as Microsoft's console, they'd be winning". While this MIGHT be true (I doubt it,) it ignores the fact that Sony would not be able to maintain the console at that price-point and would go bankrupt. So, talking about theoretical situations won't do any good. Some Sony fanboys just talk about the red ring of death. While this may be a problem (my son's had a problem... he's on his second one... but I don't think it was the red ring, because only three lights were lit and it gave a code.)... the consumers clearly don't care, because they're still buying them. In fact, the same argument that says a PS3 at a cheaper price would win is the same argument that could say the XBox 360 without the red ring problem would be doing even better. Both are about equally true, so they cancel each other out. The fact of the matter is, the XBox 360 has had hardware problems... and the PS3 does cost a whole lot.
Some people only focus on hardware that won't have technical issues as often... some people only focus on price. So, the market is driven by these types of thought processes. The fact that Microsoft chose to go with a faulty design and Sony decided to bloat their system with pricey components is irrelevant. Otherwise, you could say a Hyundai is better than a Ferrari because more Hyundai's are being bought right now.
Again, the comparison really matters on WHAT is being compared. If you only care that Microsoft is selling more consoles this month than Sony... again, I agree with you. And if you want to call that a "win" that matters, then it must matter to you. I can guarantee you, though, that it doesn't matter to Microsoft and Sony in the way you think. It might matter to Microsoft in terms of PR... but the ones in charge of their business end know full well that the time of their release matters and the fact that they are pretty much on par with Sony. If this weren't the case, they wouldn't really be dropping the price of the console at all. Do you really think their number one goal is to profit less and make their customers happier? Absolutely not. They're trying to maintain the same rate of growth that Sony is having (and vice versa.) Microsoft has been using price cuts to maintain this growth and Sony has been keeping up their growth by the fact that they have so many PS2 users still. They still have a healthy collection of PlayStation owners who are brand loyal and who will eventually ditch their PS2 for a PS3.
If you wanted to just count "consoles"... then you should add the number of PS2s Sony is selling along side the PS3s... and in that case, they'd be winning. This is something Sony and Microsoft are certainly paying attention to, but not in the same way. Microsoft sees it as added competition. Sony sees it as a gateway "drug" to eventual PS3 users (as well as something which takes a certain amount of market share away from Microsoft and a whole lot more from Nintendo.)
If, instead, you wanted to compare rate of growth (which is what Microsoft and Sony care about most) then they are about neck and neck. When Microsoft drops their price, they pull ahead by a little... the novelty wears off... and then the rate settles back down to the natural pace of the market... so far, Sony only had one bump in their growth rate and I think this had to do with the release of some highly anticipated game. They both have spikes during the holiday season and both spikes are roughly the same.
Again, this war isn't quite as one-sided as you paint it out to be. But, again, if you aren't interested in the statistics the companies are interested in, or that statisticians would pay attention to, and are only looking for an arbitrary game of "compare this month to this month," then you're right. Microsoft is winning your game. But you're not going to convince me to play your game, because I crunch statistics for a living. I am a Statistical Analyst in my profession. My prime function is forecasting. I could tell you, within a decent margin of error, how many consoles each company will sell next month... and the month after... and the month after that... I could also tell you how many each is likely to sell during the 2009 holiday season. I can tell you that, playing YOUR game, Microsoft will pretty much win all year long and are likely to win until the end of the "war"... but will have quite a challenge ahead when it comes to the next generation. However, from the perspective of Sony and Microsoft, the PS3 during its lifetime and the XBox 360 during its lifetime will have the same story to tell. They will have both experienced the same number of consoles sold in their lifetimes... they will have both experienced the same rate of growth during their lifetimes... that is IF Microsoft plays a 10-year-cycle like Sony is planning to. If Microsoft prematurely kills off their console and makes the next move sooner, then Sony will have ultimately sold more consoles... but at that point, we'd be comparing apples to oranges, and the rules would need to be adjusted to compensate.
Again, if you want to say Microsoft is winning at Scrabble... or winning at Monopoly... or winning at Golf... or whatever you want to call your game, that's awesome. I hope it makes you sleep better at night or makes your food taste better or makes games more fun for you. To me, none of this really matters. I like games, whether Sony's bank account or Microsoft's bank account is happy or not. But Microsoft and Sony are not playing your game... at best, their PR market might be trying to play that game... but like any good PR firm, it's all just propaganda.
Also, I doubt doubt Jaffe's presence in the world... I doubt the common Internet user of the world. Not the ones who keep up with these things, or follow news on gaming sites, but the clueless mothers and fathers and grandparents of gamers, or the friends of gamers who are planning on becoming gamers themselves and are trying to figure out which route to take.
You say you don't like measuring your penis... and that's fine... but why didn't you just leave your opinion as your opinion and my opinion as my opinion. This started when my opinion was called "wrong". I said these numbers don't matter to me, but it was insisted that I back up my opinion with statistics. All along I've had a penis waved at me, asking me to prove why I feel the way I do. So I did, and now that is being attacked. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were the journalist. However, the true journalist has re-worded their questions without the slant, and I applaud them... so I doubt it is you.
I also don't remember "blaming" Microsoft for anything. Again, they are doing great. They have a strategy and it is working. Sony has a strategy and it is working. Nintendo has a strategy and it is working very well. If Nintendo plays things safe, they will have it "in the bag" for the next wave of consoles. Microsoft will have to either make their system last 10-years or do something really drastic to pull out another console to compete strongly with Sony. If I had to guess, I'd say their next console might have DVR functionality in it. However, if I had to guess, I'd also say Sony is headed down this route as well.
Why was it possible for Nintendo to come from behind? Because they're smart. They made a cheaper console and created an environment of games that set itself apart from the competition. They likely learned this lesson from the DS. They have been in this business a long time, and it shows. And you're right... if Nintendo had played the Sony or Microsoft game, they would have been slaughtered. And you're right. Nobody told Sony not to do what they did. You might see it as a mistake. I don't see it this way. If Sony had made a console like the Wii, they would have had a strong competitor in Nintendo and would have likely lost. Microsoft would have the high-def market cornered and Nintendo would have the casual market cornered... and Sony would have gone the way of Sega. Instead, Sony competed where they can compete strongly, and they continue to show that they can. This doesn't mean they're teaching Microsoft a lesson... after all, Microsoft is the late-comer... if anything, Microsoft taught Sony a lesson... they taught Sony that they weren't doing anything magical, they were merely riding on a wave of a booming gaming market. All it took was a new company to introduce another console, and they'd be successful. Not any company, mind you... but a company the size of Microsoft... who can afford to lose lots of money before finally reaping their rewards.
You seem to keep wanting to misrepresent me as someone who is praising Sony. I'm not. If I say that Sony and Microsoft are equals (in the console market,) I mean equals. If I praised Sony, I would praise Microsoft equally well. You are the only one who seems to think otherwise.
Sony's console will be profitable the year after Microsoft's console is profitable. If anything, where Microsoft is really making decent money is XBox Live. On Microsoft's part it was a gamble, but a smart move. It puts them at a PR disadvantage, but it clearly hasn't prevented them from keeping pace with Sony. As a gamer, I'd rather they didn't do this... but usually when a company wins, the consumers lose, and vice versa.
Again, if you want me to just say the negative things about Sony, I've got plenty of them. They took too long on Home. Once they introduced Home, they are spending too much time on making sure Home can be an additional source of income for them rather than making Home more enjoyable for the users. But, there are going to be those who just support Home no matter what and say it's great. More power to them. They found something they like. I think it could have been much better. Sure, Microsoft came out of the gate first with "social gaming"... but they didn't invent it, and the others didn't copy them... this is something that has existed on PCs for years. It just took a while to come to consoles. Sony tried it on the PS2, but they failed miserably because they just didn't do networking right.
I think Sony was on the right track with making the PS3 a linux box... but they really really dropped the ball with it. If it had come with Linux installed out of the box... with an easy way to switch to the "computer" side of things right out of the box... and a built-in mechanism to find linux software for users and connect to "in the cloud" services, they really would have had a winner. Instead, they made it a hobby box for hackers. Terrible move.
That's why I think Microsoft could really win with the next console if they make it come with Windows... run Windows software... etc... Also, if it had DVR functionality to boot, it wouldn't necessarily need to increase the price by that much, but would really drive the wide-spread appeal.
In Sony's next console, they should make it do Linux out of the box... preinstalled... made simpler for people unfamiliar with linux... and maybe tied into things like Google's cloud computing services. Also, give it DVR functionality as well... but they need to stop focusing so much on graphics capability. If anything, they can just add some more FPU's in it... consider it more powerful... and leave it at that. MAYBE include a solid state drive, but even that is questionable... but definitely make it an optional upgrade.
@bob
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/25/analyst-casual-gaming-to-top-1-billion-by-2013-social-network/
Shoot Score
@Anonymous,
Absolutely. The casual gaming market is booming, and thankfully it is not at the expense of other gaming markets. I believe the move to casual gaming started booming during the AOL years. The Joe Schmoes of the world who were generally uncomfortable with computers, but knew enough to use AOL or play Solitaire on their computers, were starting to play the types of games found on Pop Cap Games.
Eventually, this led to miscellaneous puzzle and board game style games popping up everywhere on the Internet. Often, these were done using Flash. One such example of the predecessor for Flow.
Enter the XBox 360 and later the PS3, and you started seeing these games moving to consoles. Once the Wii came around, though everyone lumps them into this generic "casual gaming" market, they created a "casual gaming" market of their own. I would call the Wii "advanced casual gaming." Because, for the Wii, you didn't just find games like scrabble or tetris, but you found the same quality games that you would find on the original Nintendo Entertainment System. Where the Wii went "casual" was with the controller. In fact, most casual PC games which were becoming popular through social networking sites (think Mobsters through MySpace, or these "kidnap" and "easter egg hunt" games on Facebook) were becoming increasingly more complex in controls (adding friends, performing actions, applying strategies, climbing the leader boards, etc...), the Wii made this even more simple by letting you hold a controller in your hands and wave it.
Of course, they have more complex games for the harder-core gamers, I'm willing to bet that the majority of users still spend a considerable amount of time on Wii Sports, Wii Fit, etc... which are all very fun, but are essentially games that could have been found on the original Gameboy, but with a motion sensitive controller.
Nintendo tried being innovative with the controller early on. For the Nintendo Entertainment System, they had that robot... and they also had the Power Glove which is very similar to what the Wii has become today. But back then, the market was different. These were seen as nothing more than toys for kids... expensive toys for kids. But today, people are more accepting of game consoles. So, Nintendo hit the right market at just the right time.
I think it should be noted, however, that the "casual gaming" that is referred to in that particular report is likely referring more to PC-based gaming, as seen through sites such as MySpace, Facebook, etc... However, I think that the same rules apply. The reason people like "casual games" on the PC is because it is a quick break. They can check their finances on the computer, then take a break and play a quick round in a game that needn't be real-time. Then, they can get right back to work, or check the news. Likewise, with the Wii... or with casual games downloaded for the XBox 360 or the PS3, players can hop on and play a quick round of a game like Jeopardy... finish quickly... then go back to other stuff, without having to worry about interrupting a complex plot-line, or being around to assist fellow gamers in a larger campaign.
Casual gaming is for people who don't have a whole lot of time to spare in their lives. They want to have fun, but not at the expense of too much time. This is where the Wii has succeeded... and is also where all other casual games are succeeding. It's quite possible that all of this is at the expense of physical board games. I'd be interested in seeing if standard offline board games sales have been declining, or perhaps people are just spending less time watching TV.
David, I listened to your update and read the questions after. On the whole, you're right. These questions are biased; they're Microsoft-biased, and some of them are just traps. How exactly are you going to answer any of those without looking like you're on the defensive? I guess former Nintendo CEO Howard Lincoln would turn these into positives, but few people have the PR skills of that man, and you're not about to BS anyone.
The only question I thought was fair, or less subjective, was the very first one. What was it they were thinking when they designed this machine? If you ask the question without attitude, with the intent of knowing their frame of mind, their goals, it is a worthwhile question. Of course, do you actually know the answer to this? Perhaps it's a question better aimed at Howard Stringer or Ken Kutaragi. And given the rest of the question, it seems hard to answer this one, and ignore the rest.
Jaffe, you seem a little more biased to me than the journalist. Granted, they didn't paint a pretty picture of the PS3, and they didn't talk about the problems with the 360. However, the PS3 has, to my eyes, had a terrible run so far, and it seems the 360 isn't on the menu for this one.
However, I can understand your bias. By my estimation, you're a "Sony guy." Sony paid your bills for many a year, giving you the security to start and provide for a family. You've put out a number of great games, which came out on Sony products, so there has to be a connection from that.
While I do think that the original questions were valid, and I think you should have answered these instead of the abridged versions, I can see the bias in them. But, as you said, all journalism is biased, but even so, it makes for great TV, doesn't it?
@Gopherbassist,
The issue is never whether or not the interviewee is biased. One expect this, because it's an opinion. The problem is when the interviewer is biased. If the interviewer is biased, it really isn't an interview... it's a debate.
酒店經紀PRETTY GIRL 台北酒店經紀人 ,禮服店 酒店兼差PRETTY GIRL酒店公關 酒店小姐 彩色爆米花酒店兼職,酒店工作 彩色爆米花酒店經紀, 酒店上班,酒店工作 PRETTY GIRL酒店喝酒酒店上班 彩色爆米花台北酒店酒店小姐 PRETTY GIRL酒店上班酒店打工PRETTY GIRL酒店打工酒店經紀 彩色爆米花
yeezy
goyard handbags
john wall shoes
adidas stan smith
nike air max 90
adidas outlet online
air max 90
adidas nmd
off white clothing
goyard bags
roku.com/interface this is Roku.com/link least troublesome way to deal with stream incitement to your TV. On your terms. With a considerable number of available channels to investigate for more details.visit: today.Roku offers the accompanying Roku.com/link seven gushing gadgets. There are five set-top gushing boxes, the Roku Ultra, Roku Premiere, Roku Premire+, Roku Express, and Express+. At that point there are two sticks, the Roku Streaming Stick and Roku Streaming Stick Plus. Roku connects to your TV utilizing an Roku.com/link HDMI link, associated from your TV to the Roku gadget. Roku interfaces with the web by means of a wired or remote association with your home system.
Roku works by downloading video Roku.com/link from the web, you at that point watch on your TV. The video isn't spared as it's viewed while Roku downloads or "streams" the video. Applications or "stations" are programs you load onto your Roku gadget that give you different films and TV appears. This works a lot of like introducing applications on a cell phone or tablet.Roku enables you to choose what gives you need to Roku.com/linkwatch, and when you need to watch them. It resembles sitting in front of the TV as though everything is on-request. Since Roku extraordinarily extends your on-request alternatives, you may even need one to enhance your link membership as opposed to supplanting it. I'll really expound on that later in the guide.Roku bolsters Plex Media Server with an authority Roku.com/link Plex channel. I prescribe lifting it up on the off chance that you are keen on gushing your private media. It's effectively the most ideal approach to see individual substance on a Roku gadget.
Roku OS is the UI accessible on all Roku forms. Roku.com/link A portion of the accompanying capacities are not accessible on all adaptations. I'll tell you when that is the situation. Roku OS gives cross-stage search, voice search, and other programming highlights. You need a Roku record to institute Roku.com/link your contraption and access redirection. There are no month to month gear rental costs. Counting a portion method lets you adequately rent/buy movies or purchase in to surely understood organizations.Roku.com link - get started with roku account Roku.com/link creation, find roku activation code,link and activate roku device, add channels
Roku enables you to watch free Roku.com/link and paid video content on your TV by means of the Internet. For Activating Roku, go to record enter Roku com connection code showed on Roku TV.Roku empowers you to watch free and Roku.com/link paid video content on your TV by methods for the Internet. For Activating Roku, go to roku.com associate record enter Roku com association code appeared on Roku TV. Initiate Roku tv, go to roku.com link Roku.com/link record enter Roku com connection code showed on Roku TV. My roku com connect not working utilize new Roku code
All purchasers worldwide have been webroot.com/safe Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus is more than antivirus programming. It is antimalware. It stops the infections and worms that exist so as to contaminate webroot.com/safe different PCs, yet it additionally ensures you during web surfing sessions by blocking destructive sites.casualties of cybercrime. Webroot offers total insurance from infections and data fraud for every one of your gadgets, without backing you off.
Mcafee.com activate- Find the easy way to mcafee.com/activate download, install and activate McAfee Antivirus, type the 25-digit product key at mcafee.comactivate. Protect your PC from virus, spam, spyware, and malware. McAfee provides the latest antivirus software, spyware removal and internet security for your home or home office.Present mcafee thing with mcafee.com/activate no issue. We give best foundation advantage. visit today.Activate mcafee antivirus with the mcafee.com/activate highly professional tech team and get rid of antivirus from computer click the link for more details.
mcafee antivirus is broadly mcafee.com/activate utilized antivirus recognizes and kill PC infection, the infected mail ,the malware programs,and enables your framework to free of infection and other malware is a serious every day challenge.McAfee Activate! you can start mcafee.com/activate incitation with enter thing code/key at and visit for more nuances.It is unsurpassed best defensive mcafee.com/activate antivirus and against spyware .It is ongoing security innovation and it is more secure.
Post a Comment