Support NeoGAF

[M3wThr33]

The guy gave Jaffe plenty of opportunity of offer an honest rebuttal

:lol :lol :lol :lol

You think the guy would include that shit? You have no god damn clue how news works. He cherry picks everything he wants.

His mind is made up. He just wants a Sony insider to rag on his own company.

 

[Puck]

:lol Baby's crying. What a loser. :lol

(neutral) AlternativeUlster
Absolutely pathetic

I have never seen a tag more appropriate.

 

[StuBurns]

His beautiful wife? She is leaving him for Olbermann's strong man's penis.

Not cool dude, seriously not cool.

You want to rip his games go for it, don't shit on someone's private life.

 

[patsu]

Actually, the questions are not unfair. They are framed and interpreted in a negative way. You can ask the same questions that allow the interviewees to respond more freely and accurately if the writer is interested in fact finding (at all).

Game journalism (if such a thing exists) fails because of shoddy work like this. At least I now know how the writer does his "research".

 

[cann3dheat]

I don't really see the bias. Yes, looking at it subjectively, he'd just ask neutral questions, but that's not being realistic. Better to ask these "biased" questions than to ask questions like you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

The PS3 is in last place, so asking questions about why you think it's there seems fine.

Now if it were a news story (versus just an interview), that's an entirely different beast.

 

[JordoftheDead]

Fuck people are sensitive.

Even as a PS3 owner, he was asking questions that a few developers have raised in the past and the thing is, it isn't biased journalism yet because it could have been treated fairly in the context of an article.

He was asking a PS3 developer for feedback for a story it seems, and then the questions posed to the interviewee have been posted instead.

If the article was released and could me seen as being biased, fair enough. But the questions were probably designed to generate good answers and debate for a later article.

Jaffe was given every chance for rebuttal, but instead he decided to shake up the fanboys by posting the questions he had every chance to shoot down on a blog.

 

[Big-E]

The amount of MLB 09 hate in this thread is disturbing.

 

[PartlyCloudlike]

Okay see...there we go. Again, I completely understand you not wanting to bite the hand that feeds. And I understand that the way things have played out...it is no longer your place to answer those questions. BUT don't be disingenuous and just try to degrade the questions and call the media biased. THAT is the problem. These questions ARE legitimate. You should've made THIS post instead of the one you did originally.

Actually Vast Inspiration, if you closely read the questions it's clear as day that the journalist is employingthe infamous Fox News reporting tactic of "some people say", scrutinized in the infamous OutFoxed documentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYA9ufivbDw

"Journalistically its a very peculiar technique because the idea behind journalism is that you're sourcing who you're referring to. It's a clever way of inserting political opinion..."

Now on to the email quotes...

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?

Consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology. Do you feel Sony overvalued Blu-ray, after DVD helped the PS2 become such a huge success?

My complaint is that the reporter is lazy in their questioning. What's their source that Howard Stringer and Kutaragi reportedly did not do proper research on what the consumer wanted? He could assume as such, going by the PS3's last place performance, but it's not his role to assume. As a reporter, he should cite a source such as a magazine article or an industry insider, ANYTHING to support the context of the question. The same principle should apply to his assertion that people wonder what Sony were thinking when they developed the PS3. Anecdotally, I'm sure many people question Sony's strategy as I do. This journalist could have cited polls, done their own brief survey, to at least provide some grounds on which to base their question. With all this taken into consideration, I hope you don't go on another indignant posting spree when I say that these questions ARE slanted as they've been presented to fit the journalists conclusions regarding the PS3's "chronology". The journalist deserves to be degraded for his lazy email, and Jaffe shouldn't have bothered to respond. .


As for the bit about consumers being indifferent to Blu-Ray, the reporter could have easily browsed their own website to find this little bit: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28581484/

Headline: Blu-ray discs seen as bright spot in glum season
Manufacturers announcing 18 new players at CES

That left Blu-ray as the lone high-definition disc. U.S. consumers bought 28.6 million of them in the fourth quarter of 2008, according to The Digital Entertainment Group, a consortium of movie studios and electronics manufacturers. That's up from 9.5 million in the previous year. The biggest seller was "The Dark Knight," which was also the first Blu-ray disc to sell more than 1 million copies, said Andy Parsons, president of the Blu-ray Disc Association, which promotes the format in the U.S.

By Parsons' count, Blu-ray is showing a faster adoption rate than the DVD, the CD, high-definition TV sets and several other common household technologies. At the end of last year, 2 1/2 years after they first became available, there were 10.7 million Blu-ray-capable players in U.S., according to research firm DisplaySearch. Three years after the DVD launched in the 90s, there were 5.4 million DVD players.

See, was it so hard to do some research and cite your sources?

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?

This one I'm fine with because he at least qualifies his question and assertions with evidence.

edit: forgot to add comment on blu-ray quote

 

[AlternativeUlster]

Not cool dude, seriously not cool.

You want to rip his games go for it, don't shit on someone's private life.

:lol Sorry Jaffe if you are going through a divorce. Olbermann is pretty dashing though.

 

[patsu]

It is possible to ask subjective questions in a firm and neutral way, dude. You get more and better answers this way -- if the interviewee doesn't feel being used. Few people fall for that loaded question trick (unless interviewee is a high school kid). If this is standard practice in gaming journalism, then at least I know one of the reasons why they suck.

 

[cann3dheat]

Edit: Well, that tag didn't work. Ignore me.

 

[Mike Works]

there is a perception thing going on here though.

i'm going to do one of my awful comparisons. if i'm not infamous for these i should be.

imagine a journalist writing an article called something like 'the war in Iraq to date'. imagine if he asked of a general in that war 'how well have things been going?' 'what were your feelings when you saw the battle plans?' or whatever.

those would seem like softball questions. to me at least. if the questions were of the nature 'Why do you think the war has been going so badly?' and 'How horrified were you when you saw the battle plans?' i don't think 'WAIT A MINUTE, YOU SAID THE ARTICLE WAS CALLED THE WAR IN IRAQ SO FAR' would be seen as a rational response.

now i don't think the PS3 is a failure personally, but a lot of people evidently do and i don't think every one of them feels that because of some inherent bias. a lot of them feel it's unquestionably a failure.

this journalist could have merely felt it was plainly obvious that the system was a failure and therefore felt no need to flag up that 'slant' in his description of the article. he certainly didn't hide that slant in the questions, so i don't think there's any real story here.

if he'd asked for an interview with the title, live on TV and then sprung these questions on David, that'd be fucking low, but that isn't what happened here, and if the journalist thought it was widely accepted that the system was a failure then he wouldn't expect his questions to cause shock or offense.

obviously i'm hypothesizing here. i don't know the journalists intentions. the questions certainly aren't balanced, but that doesn't necessarily mean the journalist is wrong to pose these kind of questions.

of course, the telling thing will be the PS4. even if no one at Sony ever publicly talks about the companies feelings towards the PS3, the design and pricing of the PS4 will speak volumes.

there are a few problems with your analogy replacing Jaffe and the PS3 with a war general and the IRAQ war:

the entire reason for journalism and the media- at least in terms of countries like USA and a lot of Europe- is to keep people informed and keeping the government in check. that's literally what all Libertarianism and/or Socially Responsible media is for- to aid in the search for the truth.

an article detailing and questioning the history of a videogame system is MILES apart from questioning and analyzing a government's involvement in a war. i understand why you brought up the analogy, because we're all used to seeing white house pressers with the president's mouth piece, but this is definitely not the same situation.

for one, when you see the press grilling those people, they're searching for the truth, not for personal opinions. those people are representatives of the government, the mouthpieces for (the government), and they hold information which is not readily available (unless asked).

Jaffe is definitely not an equivalent of one of those mouthpieces. Sony PR would be. that doesn't mean that the journalist can't answer a question about morale at Jaffe's studio, i liked that question, but it wasn't proposed properly.

this wasn't meant to be a piece investigating the company, it was meant to be a balanced assessment of recent history, and is it stands, the questions themselves certainly have a negative slant about them.

what i'm basically summarizing is, even without the difference between assessing a game console's history and questioning a government's actions in a war, the two factors of (1) the relative position of the person being questioned (mouthpiece in a conference vs some outside the company) and (2) the mode of interview (having the ability to ask 1, maybe 2 questions live vs. having the ability to either set up an interview or ask questions multiple times via multiple email conversations).

 

[Gotchaye]

My complaint is that the reporter is lazy in their questioning. What's their source that Howard Stringer and Kutaragi reportedly did not do proper research on what the consumer wanted?

But this is a pretty informal email.

It seems to me that a big part of what people are complaining about is that this reporter didn't treat David like an idiot. That's most of what he was complaining about - that the reporter didn't clearly spell out what was obvious from the questions anyway. You're complaining that he's not sourcing observations that have been made in just about every article on the PS3 in the mainstream or business press over the last year. It's just not difficult to scrounge up a news article talking about BluRay adoption, Sony's relative disorganization with respect to the PS3, or the massive losses it's caused them. Perhaps the reporter assumed that David, being pretty plugged in, was already aware of these things.

It's just not unreasonable at this point to take as given that Sony screwed up big time with the PS3.

 

[JordoftheDead]

I agree with Gotchya.

It honestly seems like the questions touched a nerve with Jaffe, and he deflected by calling them 'biased' and commenting on an informal e-mail in the public domain for all to see.

And after reading Jaffe's response I think he losing the plot.

 

[Gotchaye]

And, again, I really doubt that the reporter cared much what David had to say. Yes, he could've set up an interview, maybe, but that would probably be a waste of time. This was likely a throwaway email on the off chance that he'd get a perspective from someone close to the company, but he was never counting on an honest response. He can get the usual spin from Sony PR; he doesn't need to tiptoe around other developers in order to get a "things are generally sunny" response.

 

[Chernobyled]

It's not bias, inquiring minds want to know. $600 was a move of staggering miscalculation and hubris... I'd be curious as to how it was perceived within the ranks at Sony.

We can all field that one.

At the time, it seemed like a good idea to release the awe inspiring PS3 at $600.

Now, looking back, it was a bad idea.


There. This isn't rocket science and I don't know why Jaffe is supposed to have some magical comments on the obvious.

 

[lowlylowlycook]

To be fair Jaffe himself said that he would have removed the bluray drive and sold the unit at a lower cost, if he could have gone back in time and changed something.

Where is my Captain Obvious gif when I need it?

 

[M3wThr33]

A lot of people here would be shitty journalists.

Tact.

Remember this word. This guy didn't.

 

[PartlyCloudlike]

But this is a pretty informal email.

That's a big problem for the reporter. It's no excuse.

It seems to me that a big part of what people are complaining about is that this reporter didn't treat David like an idiot. That's most of what he was complaining about - that the reporter didn't clearly spell out what was obvious from the questions anyway. You're complaining that he's not sourcing observations that have been made in just about every article on the PS3 in the mainstream or business press over the last year. It's just not difficult to scrounge up a news article talking about BluRay adoption, Sony's relative disorganization with respect to the PS3, or the massive losses it's caused them. Perhaps the reporter assumed that David, being pretty plugged in, was already aware of these things.

It's just not unreasonable at this point to take as given that Sony screwed up big time with the PS3.

Yes, I am complaining that he's not sourcing his observations. Why? Because he's writing an article that might be featured on a national news organizations website. As you said, it's not difficult to scrounge up news articles, so he should have done so. It's no excuse and is lazy journalism. Standards shouldn't be so low. Had he done his due diligence, he might have struck out that question regarding consumers' indifference to Blu-Ray, since the evidence shows that it's selling more than it's previous year and it's adoption rate is at pace with DVD's.

 

[Stinkles]

A lot of people here would be shitty journalists.

Tact.

Remember this word. This guy didn't.

I wish there was a topic ignore feature. I would ignore anything to do with gaf's insane obsession with game journalism.


It's exactly the same as ALL specialist press journalism. Knitting, cars, stereos, sports. Just get over it and stop subscribing if it bunches your panties so.

 

[DexterXS]

I think the 360 and Wii has gotten equally negative press.

 

[PartlyCloudlike]

To clarify what I said in my last post (quoted above):

No serious and informed person wonders at this point about whether or not the PS3 was a business failure - it was one, and we all know that now. It's not bad journalism to look for reasons why something that is known to be true is true. He can't very well ask people dependent on Sony "if you'd agree that the PS3 is a business failure, why is it one" because they all have an enormous incentive to lie. And so you've got to ask these people questions that pin them down. Yes, these would be inappropriate questions if asked of an unbiased source, but that's not the case here.

Actually, his email epitomizes bad journalism.

 

[Oblivion]

Sigh...these types of threads are entertaining at first, but by this time, they just start to get embarrassingly sad.

 

[Branduil]

There's no such thing as non-biased journalism.

I'd love to see the answers to those questions though.

 

[teepo]

Sigh...these types of threads are entertaining at first, but by this time, they just start to get embarrassingly sad.

let me go ahead and bold the import parts.

 

[____]

I think the 360 and Wii has gotten equally negative press.

Equally negative?

Or "I think the 360 and Wii have gotten negative press as well."

 

[MisterHero]

In G4's 'Icons' documentary about Miyamoto, they finished off with him answering questions about Gamecube's 'lukewarm' performance.

I thought it was a dick move since it was a documentary about Miyamoto and not the Gamecube, and perhaps it's justifiable for Jaffe to the email contains questions slanted against Sony/PS3, but I also think it was childish for Jaffe to bring it to his readers, game consumers, for a reaction before a news story is even published.

He writes in the blog if he is wondering if he's too sensitive to it. Obviously he is, because he blogged about it so others could react to it.

Grow some balls, man.

 

[JdFoX187]

I wish there was a topic ignore feature. I would ignore anything to do with gaf's insane obsession with game journalism.


It's exactly the same as ALL specialist press journalism. Knitting, cars, stereos, sports. Just get over it and stop subscribing if it bunches your panties so.

Too much logic for GAF to handle.

The questions could have been asked better, but they're hardly biased.

 

[Yagharek]

Jaffe is right. The article was already written.

 

[Byakuya769]

The amount of MLB 09 hate in this thread is disturbing.

I think most sane people wold readily recognize how great the show is, it's just seemed kind of silly in a "wait for..." list

 

[JordoftheDead]

Equally negative?

Honestly?
I think (at launch at least) the 360 copped a massive hard time.

Interviews like Shoe at EGM trying to get Moore to admit that the launch games were shit. Until GRAW and Gears the 360 was a huge whipping boy. Do you remember the GRAW review from EGM? "Finally a game that justifies the 360's purchase'.
Some of the initial 360 interviews and articles were fairly brutal and in that respect the
PS3 got off easy. Everyone gave it the benefit of the doubt.

It was only after sales didn't set the world on fire that the PS3 really started to cop it.
The PS3 had a ridiculously positive lead up to release, and it was pretty much believed by all that it was going to kick the 360's ass.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

The amount of MLB 09 hate in this thread is disturbing.

People always hate the king.


Instead of having this long pointless convo, someone should have just posted a

u mad.gif

at the beginning. So stupid.

 

[Gotchaye]

Actually, his email epitomizes bad journalism.

I'm prepared to grant that. I don't know much about journalism, and I can see where the email could be taken as a bit unprofessional. But it's not bad journalism to want to know what Sony was thinking. Worse journalism, it seems to me, would be to write an article from a position of false neutrality, implying that the status of the PS3 as a business venture was in any way in question. I've only been speaking to whether or not the questions are biased (reading biased here as meaning unjustifiably skewed), not to whether or not their presentation was entirely appropriate.

So, fine, perhaps it's good journalism to treat your sources like ignorant idiots with fragile egos, but the questions were largely questions that many people would like Sony (or people close to Sony) to answer. I guess it just seems to me that all of the concern over how the reporter is asking the questions is a smokescreen covering the fact that the questions themselves are pretty fair.

 

[DangerStepp]

Jaffe's response is like a painting come to life.

 

[JordoftheDead]

Jaffe's response is like a painting come to life.

:lol

 

[kiUNiT]

Not cool dude, seriously not cool.

You want to rip his games go for it, don't shit on someone's private life.

Have you never read or made a post about Gabe?

 

[Tormentoso]

I'd attribute part of "teh bias against poor Sony" to karmic backlash for the BS they served both the press and the gaming population at large at E32005. But then, I'm a bad person.

Every company does that in one way or another,nothing that sony did on that E3 2005 can compare with the RROD fiasco which MS try to desperately cover,hell didn't a guy from MS a few days ago say that RROD did no show up until the xbox 360 was a year old, the console was getting RROD since launch.

Sony did blow smoke but you have to admit that games like Killzone 2 put them on the right track even if the graphics are not pixel for pixel as good as the E3 showing,in the end all are just as bad.

 

[PartlyCloudlike]

I'm prepared to grant that. I don't know much about journalism, and I can see where the email could be taken as a bit unprofessional. But it's not bad journalism to want to know what Sony was thinking. Worse journalism, it seems to me, would be to write an article from a position of false neutrality, implying that the status of the PS3 as a business venture was in any way in question. I've only been speaking to whether or not the questions are biased (reading biased here as meaning unjustifiably skewed), not to whether or not their presentation was entirely appropriate.

So, fine, perhaps it's good journalism to treat your sources like ignorant idiots with fragile egos, but the questions were largely questions that many people would like Sony (or people close to Sony) to answer. I guess it just seems to me that all of the concern over how the reporter is asking the questions is a smokescreen covering the fact that the questions themselves are pretty fair.

I believe you misunderstand. By offering sources, he not only validates his questions, but it gives Jaffe an opportunity to rebut or concede. The person you're being interviewed deserves as much. Otherwise, it isn't fair to the interviewee. There is no attempt at false neutrality here, nor was there any attempt for me to present as such in my posts. Naming a source does not mean you're pursuing false neutrality. It's merely the appropriate way to substantiate your questions.

edit: removed the "ignorant idiot" stuff, it didn't pertain to your post.

 

[Gotchaye]

Oh, I also think you're misinterpreting the BluRay question. Look at the immediate follow-up about DVD and the PS2 - the previous question is only implying that BluRay in the PS3 hasn't added much value for the typical consumer, not that BluRay is in general failing.

 

[Kittonwy]

You are all over the place with this.

I never said PS3 was doing as well as the PS1 or PS2. If anything, I made it clear- via this thing called WORDS- that PS3 would prob. never catch up to Wii. I just can't see how that would happen. 360? Perhaps? They are gonna try hard to do it and our little company is gonna help out where we can as long as they will have us.

And look- just because I possibly CAN answer some/all of those questions- doesn't mean that it is my place to. Those are questions for Kaz and Phil (at a time) and Shu...even Howard Stringer. But for me?!? Again, I could give you somewhat informed answers but it's just not my place to do so.

And it's not that I don't have an opinion. I really, really do. About everything it seems BUT you come at me with an agenda and think I'm going to help you slam a company that not only do I not have a beef with AT ALL but who fucking pays my bills? Come the fuck on, man.

You want to have an honest conversation and in the corse of doing so, I say some things that are honest but not 100% flattering to Sony? Ok, I can roll with that in the interest of respecting the journalistic process and the fans and- equally as important- respecting Sony. I don't lie and I don't bullshit and I don't spin. BUT that doesn't mean I HAVE to answer anything I don't want to. And that lack of a desire to answer a question could come from a number of places...in this case it comes from a journalist coming out me and pretty much asking me to help him (assuming my answers would actually do so) slash and burn a company I care about.

And as for my involvement in Sony with Sony not being high up enough to get this sort of info being 'sad' as you put it: get a fucking life dude. If THAT is what you call sad, you need to live a little bit.

Oh, and if that was supposed to be an insult, get a fuckin Don Rickles video and learn how to do it right.

David

The reporter who did the interview with you might have been disingeneous, but then you know better next time than to bother with an interview with such a reporter, sometimes it's better just to walk away.

 

[Kittonwy]

Every company does that in one way or another,nothing that sony did on that E3 2005 can compare with the RROD fiasco which MS try to desperately cover,hell didn't a guy from MS a few days ago say that RROD did no show up until the xbox 360 was a year old, the console was getting RROD since launch.

Sony did blow smoke but you have to admit that games like Killzone 2 put them on the right track even if the graphics are not pixel for pixel as good as the E3 showing,in the end all are just as bad.

I don't know why some people are still holding a grudge over the E3 2005 target render debacle, Guerilla Games basically proved themselves with the best-looking game on a console and the best game on the PS3, maybe it's still not as great as the target render but they came alot closer to a target render than most developers came to a real-time in-engine target. It's time for those people to just let it go.

 

[davidjaffe]

So, fine, perhaps it's good journalism to treat your sources like ignorant idiots with fragile egos, but the questions were largely questions that many people would like Sony (or people close to Sony) to answer. I guess it just seems to me that all of the concern over how the reporter is asking the questions is a smokescreen covering the fact that the questions themselves are pretty fair.

Jeeze man. Just because the questions themselves are valid questions that people want answered (and they ARE valid questions and I have said as much) it does not mean that it's good journalism if:

a- the questions are asked to the wrong person (i.e. how the fuck would I know what Ken and Stringer were thinking on a day to day basis?!?) If you really want the questions answered- and game fans should because they are relevant from an industry business standpoint- then they should also want the questions asked of the proper people (Ken, Shu, Kaz, Howard Stringer, Phil Harrison). This guy is not looking for any facts in asking these questions of ME! Come on...he's either a shitty journalist who is asking the right questions to the wrong guy and he doesn't even know it OR he's clearly fishing for a sensationalistic headline for his piece. Either way, you- as a game fan who wants to know the answers to these questions- are not being served...

b- As I have said- and as had been said by others- if the author wants to write a piece on the his perception that the PS3 is a shit/failed/dead platform, by all means, he has that right. As clear from the posts on this thread, many folks would agree. Fine by me. I don't agree but fine by me. I'm not opposed to such a story being written (who am I to oppose ANY story being written unless it's blatantly a lie)? BUT when you approach me and tell me a story is about the history of the PS3 from launch till now and then ONLY include questions that are negative and poor excuses for journalism (ex: 'it seems like' !?!?) while excluding any of the PS3 successes within your questions AND on top of it, you get your pay check from the same company that sells the main competition for Sony...well then yeah, I get a little worried/suspicious/annoyed. If that makes me a person with a fragile ego who needs to be treated like an idiot, fair enough. I assumed that made me a person who demands to be treated with a modicum of respect by folks who are asking me to take time out of my life to help them do their fucking job.

David

 

[Snipes424]

The reporter who did the interview with you might have been disingeneous, but then you know better next time than to bother with an interview with such a reporter, sometimes it's better just to walk away.

I don't know, I am glad that Jaffe put some light on this personally.

It holds these journalist responsible for what they say.

 

[Stinkles]

Jeeze man. Just because the questions themselves are valid questions that people want answered (and they ARE valid questions and I have said as much) it does not mean that it's good journalism if:

a- the questions are asked to the wrong person (i.e. how the fuck would I know what Ken and Stringer were thinking on a day to day basis?!?) If you really want the questions answered- and game fans should because they are relevant from an industry business standpoint- then they should also want the questions asked of the proper people (Ken, Shu, Kaz, Howard Stringer, Phil Harrison). This guy is not looking for any facts in asking these questions of ME! Come on...he's either a shitty journalist who is asking the right questions to the wrong guy and he doesn't even know it OR he's clearly fishing for a sensationalistic headline for his piece. Either way, you- as a game fan who wants to know the answers to these questions- are not being served...

b- As I have said- and as had been said by others- if the author wants to write a piece on the his perception that the PS3 is a shit/failed/dead platform, by all means, he has that right. As clear from the posts on this thread, many folks would agree. Fine by me. I don't agree but fine by me. I'm not opposed to such a story being written (who am I to oppose ANY story being written unless it's blatantly a lie)? BUT when you approach me and tell me a story is about the history of the PS3 from launch till now and then ONLY include questions that are negative and poor excuses for journalism (ex: 'it seems like' !?!?) while excluding any of the PS3 successes within your questions AND on top of it, you get your pay check from the same company that sells the main competition for Sony...well then yeah, I get a little worried/suspicious/annoyed. If that makes me a person with a fragile ego who needs to be treated like an idiot, fair enough. I assumed that made me a person who demands to be treated with a modicum of respect by folks who are asking me to take time out of my life to help them do their fucking job.

David

What did Ken have for lunch? Dish!

 

[PartlyCloudlike]

Oh, I also think you're misinterpreting the BluRay question. Look at the immediate follow-up about DVD and the PS2 - the previous question is only implying that BluRay in the PS3 hasn't added much value for the typical consumer, not that BluRay is in general failing.

I am prepared to agree with you...

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?

Until I acknowledge how poor his wording is, and that he truly is wrong. Because of Sony's poor performance, he assumes that consumers appear indifferent to Blu-Ray technology. Correlation does NOT mean causation, and he's directly inferring this with that statement. Wrong on his part again, since all you have to do is look at Blu-Ray sales from last year.

 

[plagiarize]

The amount of people that are being asked is not a concern as long as all of the people being asked were responsible for the result. Jaffe isn't one of those people.

yeah or MAYBE he wanted multiple different perspectives on it, including how a developer inside the company (at the time) saw things.

 

[Kittonwy]

Jeeze man. Just because the questions themselves are valid questions that people want answered (and they ARE valid questions and I have said as much) it does not mean that it's good journalism if:

a- the questions are asked to the wrong person (i.e. how the fuck would I know what Ken and Stringer were thinking on a day to day basis?!?) If you really want the questions answered- and game fans should because they are relevant from an industry business standpoint- then they should also want the questions asked of the proper people (Ken, Shu, Kaz, Howard Stringer, Phil Harrison). This guy is not looking for any facts in asking these questions of ME! Come on...he's either a shitty journalist who is asking the right questions to the wrong guy OR he's clearly fishing for a sensationalistic headline for his piece. Either way, you- as a game fan who wants to know the answers to these questions- are not being served...

b- As I have said- and as had been said by others- if the author wants to write a piece on the his perception that the PS3 is a shit/failed/dead platform, by all means, he has that right. As clear from the posts on this thread, many folks would agree. Fine by me. I don't agree but fine by me. I'm not opposed to such a story being written (who am I to oppose ANY story being written unless it's blatantly a lie)? BUT when you approach me and tell me a story is about the history of the PS3 from launch till now and then ONLY include questions that are negative and poor excuses for journalism (ex: 'it seems like' !?!?) while excluding any of the PS3 successes within your questions AND on top of it, you get your pay check from the same company that sells the main competition for Sony...well then yeah, I get a little worried/suspicious/annoyed. If that makes me a person with a fragile ego who needs to be treated like an idiot, fair enough. I assumed that made me a person who demands to be treated with a modicum of respect by folks who are asking me to take time out of my life to help them do their fucking job.

David

I'm kind of curious as to why he didn't ask you about the game you're working on given that you're a developer making a PS3 game and not Sony management tasked with analyzing the company's decisions.

 

[Justin]

Seem like pretty good questions to me. I am sure if they were doing one on the 360 it would be all about RROD.

 

[legend166]

Jeeze man. Just because the questions themselves are valid questions that people want answered (and they ARE valid questions and I have said as much) it does not mean that it's good journalism if:

a- the questions are asked to the wrong person (i.e. how the fuck would I know what Ken and Stringer were thinking on a day to day basis?!?) If you really want the questions answered- and game fans should because they are relevant from an industry business standpoint- then they should also want the questions asked of the proper people (Ken, Shu, Kaz, Howard Stringer, Phil Harrison). This guy is not looking for any facts in asking these questions of ME! Come on...he's either a shitty journalist who is asking the right questions to the wrong guy and he doesn't even know it OR he's clearly fishing for a sensationalistic headline for his piece. Either way, you- as a game fan who wants to know the answers to these questions- are not being served...

b- As I have said- and as had been said by others- if the author wants to write a piece on the his perception that the PS3 is a shit/failed/dead platform, by all means, he has that right. As clear from the posts on this thread, many folks would agree. Fine by me. I don't agree but fine by me. I'm not opposed to such a story being written (who am I to oppose ANY story being written unless it's blatantly a lie)? BUT when you approach me and tell me a story is about the history of the PS3 from launch till now and then ONLY include questions that are negative and poor excuses for journalism (ex: 'it seems like' !?!?) while excluding any of the PS3 successes within your questions AND on top of it, you get your pay check from the same company that sells the main competition for Sony...well then yeah, I get a little worried/suspicious/annoyed. If that makes me a person with a fragile ego who needs to be treated like an idiot, fair enough. I assumed that made me a person who demands to be treated with a modicum of respect by folks who are asking me to take time out of my life to help them do their fucking job.

David

Well then, why not just send a reply saying "Hey man, sorry I don't think I'll be able to answer those questions. I didn't have as much input/knowledge into the planning and design of the PS3 as you may think. Thanks."

Surely that's a better course of action then questioning the integrity of MSNBC/the journalist in public.

Since we're talking about tact, and all.

 

[Gotchaye]

I believe you misunderstand. By offering sources, he not only validates his questions, but it gives Jaffe an opportunity to rebut or concede. The person you're being interviewed deserves as much. Otherwise, it isn't fair to the interviewee. There is no attempt at false neutrality here, nor was there any attempt for me to present as such in my posts. Naming a source does not mean you're pursuing false neutrality. It's merely the appropriate way to substantiate your questions.

edit: removed the "ignorant idiot" stuff, it didn't pertain to your post.

First, I'd like to clear up that I'm not saying anything against you. It's perfectly all right to take issue with various journalistic failings here, and I was being overbroad when I made that comment about all such concern being a smokescreen. I do think that, if this is just terrible journalism, then journalists have set some too-strict standards, but I can see where you're coming from.

My issue is with the claim that the questions themselves are biased. I don't see much in there that doesn't seem to me to have been pretty thoroughly established by the data and past reporting on the subject. Your concern here was mostly the BluRay comment, and, yeah, correlation isn't causation, but I think the straightforward interpretation of what he's going for is that BluRay obviously didn't make the PS3 successful as DVD seems to have done for the PS2, regardless of how independently successful BluRay has been. That is, he's only saying "Consumers appear indifferent to BluRay technology" in the context of the PS3, not in the context of the HD video market in general. I suppose there's room for disagreement on this, though.