Home Gaming Jack Tretton is bad for Sony

Jack Tretton is bad for Sony

1 min read

Seriously someone needs to explain to Jack Tretton that he really is damaging Sony’s image with his press releases and interviews.

He was recently interviewed by Newsweek about the new 40Gb model and he was asked about the lack of BC in the 40GB model and how it actually could be portrayed as a betrayal of the PlayStation brand. Jack’s answer?

Today, for $399, I’m able to get all the same technology in the Playstation 3, and for $129, if I don’t own a PlayStation 2, I can buy that as well at any retailer in North America. So for a total investment of $529, I’ve got two machines that do everything the same machine did a year ago at $599. So it’s hard for me to see that as a negative for the consumer.

So if I want my PS3 to do what you promised it would do I need to go and buy a PS2 as well?

I think the 40GB model is the best thing that Sony has done recently but Jack is on his way to ruining that now. Jack people don’t want to be told to buy more Sony goods to get what was originally promised to them.

Level Up : Sony Computer Entertainment America Announces New 40 Gigabyte Playstation 3 for $399; CEO Insists That the PS3 Remains ‘Relevant’

Last Updated: October 19, 2007


  1. Banana hammock

    October 19, 2007 at 12:24

    I think you’re a bit harsh there Lazy, BC has been the most overrated feature of the PS3 so far. I haven’t used it once yet. Add to that the fact that the games are seriuosly crappy looking next to the PS3 stuff (and i was wowed by GoW just a few months back) I don’t see too many people playing PS2 games on the PS3.

    If you want a PS3 with BC, the 60gb model is still available for now and consumers can buy that one. I think he could have phrase the whole “Buy our 2 system and get everything you want” part a bit better, but he’s not exactly wrong.


  2. LazySAGamer

    October 19, 2007 at 12:31

    yeah but remember what Kaz Hirai originally said about the PS3?

    “I think that when we ask the consumers, or the gamers to make an investment in software, that it’s our responsibility to make sure that the future consoles that we bring to market, including a Playstation 3, is able to actually play all these titles that the consumers have really spent a lot of money in, and invested a lot of money into really a master library”

    They are now renegading on that and I want to see humility about it not arrogance.


  3. Banana hammock

    October 19, 2007 at 13:04

    Why? I am currently getting exactly what he promised, i don’t use it but i have it.

    The new SKU doesn’t do it but he didn’t know about every tactical move Sony was going to make.


  4. LazySAGamer

    October 19, 2007 at 13:15

    As I have said before I think this new 40GB model is a fantastic idea, however when they are questioned about them dropping promised functionality they should be more humble in there answers. Instead of telling people to go and buy a PS2 he could apologise and explain that since most people did not want BC they decided it would be a better idea to remove it.

    Personal opinion is all


  5. Banana hammock

    October 19, 2007 at 13:25

    Like i said in the first comment, he could have phrased it better.

    Check out the interview with Peter Dille on gamesindustry.biz he also mentions the “buy a PS2” part, but somehow it’s seems so much more palatable the way he does it.


  6. LazySAGamer

    October 19, 2007 at 13:40

    @Banana, yeah he does put it much better in that interview. No wonder it didn’t get the same publicity 😉


  7. Lupus

    October 19, 2007 at 13:53

    Honestly though if I did buy the PS 3 I would like to be able to play the 30 PS2 games I’ve got in my library currently, even the 60gb model can’t really assure me that it will play them all as it does what the 360 does, emulates instead of having the hardware onboard. At least with the 360 I can play some of the older games if I want to.


  8. Ruslan

    October 19, 2007 at 14:03

    BC games look CRAPPY? What you smoking? RE4 & SoTC look sweet when scaled up to 720 or 1080i on my PS3. The severe lack of quality PS3 games has made folks buy the PS3 for its BR drive or to play the +2000 available PS2 games.

    Wasnt this the same when the PS2 was launched? Folks got it as a DVD player and a PS1 emulator. This is just another aspect of Sony endless arrogance towards the gaming community by some brainwashed moroon.


  9. Banana hammock

    October 19, 2007 at 14:46

    Sorry, we’ll just have to disagree on this one, i think PS2 games are crappy compared to PS3 games (graphics only).

    I didn’t buy my PS2 so i could have a DVD player and i didn’t get it to play PS1 games. Likewise i didn’t buy a PS3 because it has BD or so i could play PS2 games. I got it to play PS3 games and at launch there were more than enough games to keep me busy.

    I can understand if you have 5 hours a day for gaming then the supposed lack of titles could have been a problem, but i can only give about 5 hours a week, so for me there has been no lack of qualtiy titles at all.

    And you speak of arrogance, what company isn’t arrogant? MS who deny endless hardware issues for over a year and then want praise for finally extending the warranty? Or how about Ninty who know there are gong to be massive shortages but refuse to up production because it costs too much?

    I don’t have a problem with what any of these companies have done. In big business you have to be arrogant.


  10. SlippyMadFrog

    October 19, 2007 at 15:35

    @ Banana

    How do you know how many people are using BC? Maybe there is a hell of a lot poeple playing their PS2 games on their PS3 because they don’t want two consoles taking up space on their wall unit.
    I think sony should just have gone with software emulation to bring down cost but crazy Ken was so arrogant that he thought people will buy the PS3 regardless of cost. How wrong was he 😉


  11. doobiwan

    October 19, 2007 at 16:07

    The question is going to be – You’re a parent going console shopping this holiday, you walk into a store wanting to “upgrade” your home console and see:

    PS2 @$129 – old but lots of new family titles
    PS3 40Gb @$400 – with 3/4 native family games but no ability to play the PS2 games
    Xbox 360 Arcade @$280 with All the family games the PS2 is getting, all the games the PS3 is getting, and some exclusives.

    Which do you chose?


  12. Abe

    October 20, 2007 at 09:24

    “Xbox 360 Arcade @$280 with All the family games the PS2 is getting, all the games the PS3 is getting, and some exclusives.” Thats possibly the worst comment you have ever made doobiwan.


  13. Banana hammock

    October 22, 2007 at 06:48

    Actually his blatant exclusion of the Wii is a bigger mistake, that is the console parents are buying their kids not 360s and PS3s.


    I can’t give you numbers, but if i go with all the people i know who have PS3s as well as all the people i have spoken with on various forums i get the distinct impression that there is only a small percentage of people who use the PS3 for PS2 games.


  14. doobiwan

    October 22, 2007 at 13:22

    @Banana, you’re right, I apologise for excluding the obvious. Wii is top of any list, the purchase choice is a different one to PS2/3 versus 360.

    And Abe, comment if you have something to add, non-responses are just a waste of bandwidth.

    I stand by the question and I offer no specific answer, those are the three “Non-Wii” choices a parent has this season. Add the Wii, or consider the question if the Wii is sold out.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Best Sorts of Venues to Record Live Performances

Live performances have a quality that elevates them above and beyond studio sessions, but …