Chazore said:
thismeintiel said:
That's not actually true, though. Ken Kutaragi was passionate about gaming. He worked on the SNES sound chip in secret and when he finally presented it to execs, most wanted to end the project, because gaming was seen as a fad within the company. He was able to convince the CEO to allow him to continue working with Nintendo on the chip, which eventually led to the idea of partnering for the Nintendo Play Station. When Nintendo suddenly pulled out of the deal in favor of a (failed) partnership with Phillips, I'm sure they were upset, but most execs still just wanted to end the project. Kutaragi was, once again, able to convince the CEO about the potential of gaming, and the PlayStation was born. So, it was born out of passion, not to just get back at Nintendo. Here's a pretty good documentary about it: |
I know you see it as passion, but that's like saying Nintendo are the kindest company on earth (yet they ruled with an iron fist, especially with the Nintendo seal of approval logic). I don't see it as passion, especially when hearing it from a CEO of a company (a company that like MS, isn't without faults, arrogance and bad dealing here and there), because I know it's really about money at the end of the day. While you can use the passion angle, it doesn't exactly hold true to this day, when you're paying £10 extra for upgrades, the data leak fiasco, the exclusivity deals and much more. Also I really don't like to think that someone could imagine "passion" being used in the same ideal as wanting to replace PC's, like to me that's not passion, that's more of wanting others to change to what they want as their ideal, not mine (and well, because they're a big company, do they care about what my ideal is?, no, which doesn't come off as passionate either, when you look at the big picture). We could say MS was "passionate" about what they wanted to do with Xbox, but then we got GFWL on PC, and was that something passionate or born from it, even if you heard a CEO or some journo saying such?. |
Frankly i feel your comments about samurai and passive-aggressive japanese smacks of your own personal bias, rather than anything Sony did.
As I understand it, after spending time and money to develop a device, having your supposed partner smack you in the face with a reveal on a big stage (without even the grace to inform you beforehand) would surely leave any company feeling aggrieved. With a lot of the work already done it is hardly surprising that Sony decided to go their own way on this. While Sony's anger at their treatment is frequently bandied about, as reflective of a large corporation, the decision would have been based on logic, and rationale.
You talk a lot about some current Sony practices which i feel are irrelevant to the discussion.
Put simply, i understand why you may think sony may not have been good guys when they launched the PS1, generally most people consider that their reasons for this were valid. I also would argue that while Sony has promoted other products (particularly in the first few gens) and has myriad flaws, it (and Nintendo) are passionate about gaming for its sake. I feel that this is where MS differs as they have always tried to promote other elements and have underlying reasons for having consoles - be it multiplayer gaming, all-in-one tv console or the "netflix of gaming".
OT - doc sounds interesting . Will have a read.
