Zoe said:
It seems pretty clear that their stance was pre-determined:
All of those questions could have been reworded to not include those assertions and would have been much less biased as a result.
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?
That's the part where Jaffe says "No, I don't think that was the case, because..."
Despite the pointedness of the question, I think it has a valid backing. To me, the design of the PS3 seems to be that Ken Kutaragi lost sight of design goals, like affordability, in a quest to make the PS3 the greatest console of all time.
I'd agree that question should probably be rephrased. But is it biased? No. The framework he's given to answer the question in gives him plenty of scope to say just about anything on the subject, including refuting the conclusions that lead to the question.
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?
Does anyone think that "599 US Dollars" was NOT a crippling move for Sony? And that $400 is not a problem for them, especially given the recent economic downturn? I would hope that Jaffee agrees with this. But if not, he could explain why and give an alternative explanation for the PlayStation 3's poor sales.
Consumers appear indifferent to Blu-ray technology. Do you feel Sony overvalued Blu-ray, after DVD helped the PS2 become such a huge success?
This is a good question! You might question whether consumers are indifferent to Blu-ray or not, but the inclusion of Blu-ray is clearly not driving PS3 sales to new heights.
Personally, I'd probably reply that, no, Sony's inclusion of Blu-ray was probably driven more by a desire to grow the Blu-ray install base and defeat HD DVD than by a belief that it would drive PS3 sales.
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?
Another good question. Did Sony have a plan for what would make the PS3 a success? From where I'm sitting, it looks like they lost sight of their design goals. They were overly ambitious, wanting to make the greatest console ever, but the design proved to be very expensive.
Although, I doubt the feature additions are actually a symptom of that. To me, that sounds more like that they launched before they were ready. Perhaps because their hand was forced by the Xbox 360.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're valid questions. As I stated before, the person clearly has knowledge of the subject going into the interview and is asking for Jaffee to back-up or refute the conclusions he's come to based on that knowledge. None of these questions are 'Do you still beat your wife'. They all give Jaffee the opportunity to disagree with the interviewer's conclusions.
An interview like that would be perfectly acceptable for a piece that tries to determine why the PlayStation 3 has done so poorly compared to other systems presently on the market and in comparison to the PlayStation 1 and 2.
"From my research, this is what I think, but you're an expert. Do you agree or disagree and why or why not?" is not biased journalism.
