Its both a bad idea and a good one at the same time.

Bad because developers can get frustrated with it and decide to not take their time on the games to make them great. And therefore you see horrible ports and even horrible exclusives as well.

Good because there will always be one developer that seems to get more out of the console then everyone else. Then other developers will see this and will try and make one better. And that reason alone can help make a console last the 10 years they want.

@onyxmeth

well basically he's saying he wants devs to work hard n slowly get the benefits out of the PS3

he wants devs to learn & get better over time so that better looking games....games with better physics, AI n so on come out as you go on through the years.

he doesn't want the console's strength to be exhausted in the first 2 -3 years

so theoretically its a good idea....but only theoretically cus that has cost Ps3 a LOT! & also there's no guarantee better games will be produced as more devs want to make multiplat games.

thats why I said theoretically its a good idea.

This does not make a console last 10 years.  Consumers make that decision and also harder to program for means less and less game made with longer development time to work on programing causing higher risk which in turn less game for people to buy which in turn less interest in console and ultimately less console sales making it harder to for a console to live 10 years.

When has that ever worked?

All that statement comes down to is "look! 9 years from now we'll have better games for the PS3".

The X360 is very easy to develop for. Games have improved vastly since the 1st wave of games.

Very sad article. Technology should never be hard to develop for when possible. It never provides an advantage.

Saturn was technically more powerful than the PS1.

However no one bothered to push its limits since it didn't sell well. Its a big gamble in my opinion. If PS3 sells a ton, devs will maybe take the time to learn the tricks to push its limits otherwise it will never get there.

He's also saying the PS3 was made purposely difficult though to extend the length of time it would take to see good results, meaning(as I see it) that while they could have made a console where Killzone 2 graphics could have been more common place and came sooner, they purposely bottlenecked devs so those Killzone 2-like(and above) visuals couldn't be achieved until years later. So basically I see it as him saying we could have had the awesomeness earlier, but to spread it out, you'll now see it further down the line at the tail end of this gen. Is that really a benefit for gamers?

He should stick to Lost.

There is a reason nobody wanted to program in assembler. Maybe Sony never learned that lesson?

technology exist to make life easier and make us lazier not make life harder and work more lol.

Are you saying he's ignorant to how it works? I find that to be unlikely. If most people here, which are probably less educated and less in the know about PS3 tech can understand how bad the comment looks, I doubt Kaz Hirai could be so ignorant to not understand. What I really don't get is, in what line of thinking is that comment beneficial to Sony? It sounds bad to investors, gamers and developers/publishers alike.