Q: That's a commanding lead over the Xbox One, and the Wii U. But what does that really mean for Sony at this stage? What actual advantage does that give you?

JR: Having momentum and having that initial success - and it is just initial, there's a long way to go yet - it puts us in good heart for the future. Some of the stuff we touched on yesterday, talking about the future, whether that's PlayStation Now, whether that's Morpheus, PlayStation TV in the nearer term - all of these things require investment.

It's much easier to make decisions like that from a position of relative success, relative strength, rather than a world where PlayStation 4 was struggling, where our momentum wasn't great. The money man would be thinking, 'hmmm, do we really want to put more into this?' Those conversations, which are very important for us and very important for the shape of the whole industry, they become easier. That can only be a good thing.

Q: You mentioned avoiding complacency at the end of the conference, and that's the most obvious pitfall from a position of strength. There was a good variety of experiences on show - is that what you were referring to? Because more so than the hardware, breadth of content has probably been the definitive aspect of the new generation to date.

JR: I think that's right. Some of that comes from the polarisation of the industry. Everybody can see that the big studios getting bigger and more monolithic, and there's this really interesting emerging sector at the entry level - I dread to use the word "indie" these days. That brings breadth and variety.

And then on the time axis, what you saw a bit of last night was the first signs of us starting to think about different audiences. Some of the games last night were 2015, possibly even beyond, where we're going to be looking at something a little bit broader, a little more mass. Those two things meant you had a range of types of developer activity, but also looking at slightly different audience profiles. You've got Bloodborne at one end of it, Tearaway at the other.

Q: Sony's stance on EA's Access initiative does seem to be against consumer choice. The official line was that it doesn't offer good value to your customers, and that's your right as platform holder, obviously. But you have Netflix there, you have Spotify, you have other services that offer content by subscription. What's the difference with EA Access?

JR: We've got to look at this issue very holistically, to look at the consequences of that service relative to existing services on our platform, relative to other services that might come along from other companies. We have to juggle a lot of balls. I don't think we're ruling anything in or out forever, but right now we don't think it's right for the platform.

Q: It does raise the question of what it would be like if every publisher had one of these services. Is that part of it?

JR: It's a sensitive area, but that's the sort of thing that we're thinking about.

The rest of the interview here....

Pretty good read all round. 

10M lead?

My bad... edited thread title. Was having a talk with someone one when PS4 gets a 10M lead and I think that conversation just carried over to my initial title lol.

I like how they're not arrogant even though they are in first place by a large margin.
Still don't understand their explanation for not having EA access. PS+ has gained so many more subscriptions since they made it a requirement to play online. Sony shouldn't be too worried about EA access competing with their own service.

So we've gone from "not good for the gamer" to "not right for the platform".

Go on Sony. Getting closer to the truth ;)

Watch out, you my get banned for that opinion...  :)

I think they too(Like M$ anf the TR announcment) are getting the idea that only telling part of the story is just as bad as lying.  Best to just come clean.  They did an excellent job on the Gamescon presentation of doing just that.

I do not think that is it, what i think they are worried about and rightly so is if that service takes off, it give more of the "Toll position" to the other publisher's instead of your own, now imagine if all 3rd party publisher's do that! it becomes a bidding war to ever has the largest check book, vs any of the publisher's but on a much larger scale to shift priority to ones that pay a large sum of cash to do so, imagine if all of them does it!

In direct comp. vs Nintendo or Microsoft Sony would not have the funds to directly compete based on cash on hand, by choosing not to play that game with EA , it may in effect Give Microsoft an edge, but in that option it was going to be that way anyway. Right now with Playstation + Sony is choosing to put it as priority and let the install base force EA: hands.

Yes it could very well do awesome on the xboxone, but to avoid a upfront bidding war where Sony would not be able to win , Sony is atleast making sure any money that goes through will still be from playstation+ sub's instead of further split. and than Split again, and Again further splitting income split with other main large publisher's that go this route, at least with many Indies, it make it more viable to make sure they go through Sony's service over EA or other publisher's.

That i think is the real point would EA really leave a 10+ million install base for the games they produce for a service tied to one they create , that are asking a publisher directly to pay up or we will give priority to other platforms 1st, the point is thats already being done, this just would allow EA to direct more money from Sony in order to get the way EA wants it in best terms for EA , Not Sony!

Which would compound the issue is if the other large 3rd party Publisher's do  say the very same thing EA is doing, that means much higher licenceing from EA, Ubisoft, Square etc..one of which a cash strapped company Like Sony could not really be choosing to pay out upfront, thus who would Sony have to increase prices on just to recover those cost's?

thats right the Consumer. One of which Sony was not willing to do and ask more consumer's to pay even more for other publisher subscriptions on top of the one's they already pay on without atleast Sony getting 1st priority instead of EA, UBISOFT ETC.

iTS ABOUT NOT LETTING A FREAKING FOX IN THE D@MN HEN HOUSE!