Jack Tretton the SCEA President and CEO recently had an interview with Gamepro. In the interview Gamepro asked Jack's opinion on the rumor of Microsoft adopting the Folding@Home project that, well Sony was first to adopt. Here is his response:
"I think what's very important to us, and I think is great for our consumers, is the pride that it gives you as a company to say that we're helping to fight and research Alzheimer's and that 250K people signed up in less than 60 days. And what we're doing takes 30 times longer on a PC, and that's a great testament to the PS3, but it's more a real feel-good thing to take your machine when it's idle to help contribute to that cause.
So if other companies can help contribute to that, I think that's great. But let's face it, if your motivation is for PR, to me, that's a little shallow. We go out of our way, correctly so, to make sure that we don't try to sell PS3s on Folding@Home. We try to look at it for just what it is, which is great community service for a great cause, and I think to look at it as a marketing platform is something that a company certainly wouldn't want to do. I'm certainly not insinuating that's Microsoft's motivation, but I'm not even sure how relevant it is to what were doing.
Would they be even having this conversation if we weren't doing it? I don't know. I would guess that the medical community would take help from anywhere they could get it, but the commentary that I heard is that Stanford isn't sure that [the Xbox 360's processing abilities] would help them very much, which is odd to be because if it helped at all, it seems like they would welcome it with open arms.
It's really ugly territory to get into, but let's take fighting a disease and see if we can get some credit for that. It's not a cool game to play one way or the other, so I don't want to even give the impression that that's our motivation and I'd be very disappointed if they're looking for PR value or to try to suck off some of the goodwill that we're doing."
So they don't want folding at home for PR value or to sell the PS3?
"takes 30 times longer on a PC"
"does it when the machine is idle"
"not sure if the Xbox 360 could help"
"let's take fighting a disease and see if we can get some credit for that."
"try to suck off some of the goodwill we're doing"
Lets go through the checklist:
1.) Brag about how much faster your PS3 is than the PC- CHECK
2.) Brag even more because the PS3 does it while it's idle- CHECK
3.) Put down your competition because your "Not sure they can help"- CHECK
4.) Take credit for fighting disease- CHECK
5.) Make Microsoft the bad guy because they want to help- CHECK
Not trying to sale the PS3 or get good PR huh? Doesn't sound like it to me. And well if they actually do end up finding the cure for cancer, you'll never here the end of it.
2 comments:
I heard is that Stanford isn't sure that [the Xbox 360's processing abilities] would help them very much, which is odd to be because if it helped at all, it seems like they would welcome it with open arms
have you actually read the second part of that sentence? And have you actually read the question that Jack Tretton was asked? probably not :P here is it:
GP: Folding@Home has been a big success. There have been rumors that Microsoft wants to participate, too. Aside from any medical benefit that it might produce, would it be smart from a business standpoint for Microsoft to do join in considering the under-power of the Xbox 360 CPU compared to the PS3's Cell?
So Jack was actually asked how he felt of MS if they used F@H as a PR stunt... please stop spreading FUD
Well Maurice he does mention his feelings if MS did use F@H as a publicity stunt (which would be very shallow), but what does the speed of the PS3 or any other unnecessary bragging have to do with MS and a PR stunt. NOTHING!
And in reply to your first paragraph, what does Stanford welcoming the 360 with open arms have to do with anything?
Post a Comment