Sony's Andrew House

I think that's fair. We've been I hope careful and judicious in the way we've positioned 3D for games.

At no point are we saying, 'Right, that's it, all games are going to 3D and people will play 3D all the time.' I don't think that's the way this will find its way into people's gaming consciousness.

To be frank, I've been encouraged but also somewhat surprised at how quickly our developers have moved full scale into full games in 3D. The critical thing is that it's an option. It's not a mandate. It's not something we're trying to force people to have.

It's something we're making available and at the right time for the right game the consumer will embrace.

Playing games with a headset is the closest thing I can equate to the same idea as having to wear glasses. Similar pattern, I think. For those people who see enough enhancement in that and - whether it's my son on Skype with his friend in California.

It's an enhancement and consumers will see the benefit or not.

That was first party that we were talking about, specifically on that. You get into grey areas if... We based the calculation around our games. Fair is fair.

It's hugely impactful. It's got to be near the top of any solid gaming consideration list. We're delighted to be able to have it as part of the offering.

The wider point I'd make on exclusives is on PS2 we had more emphasis on third party exclusives.

What has happened on PS3 – and I give great credit to Shuhei Yoshida on this – is we have done a tremendous job with our own global development resources within Sony to make sure there's a strong stream of exclusive content that is Sony owned and Sony provided.

That has been a counterbalance to the move away from third party publishers going exclusive with one platform.

I don't know. I'm not sure how you go about evaluating it and how it migrates over time.

It's important not so much for me in the sense of exclusive, must have that console because I must have that particular game, it's not elsewhere - clearly there's a calculation that goes on in that area – but we're in an entertainment business and people are seeking experiences. The most important thing is innovation.

Innovation has to be to a degree pioneered by first party and by the platform holder, to take the risks, to undertake the creative challenges, and deliver experiences that are differentiated from the competition as well as de facto exclusive to the platform.

It's a fine distinction. That's what motivates people more at the end of the day.

A good example was when we demonstrated Sorcery for the first time at E3. You could feel around you that light bulb moment go on for everybody, particularly a core gamer audience that went, 'I want to do that.'

That's the primary motivation that's perhaps more important than, is it only on that platform?

I'd like to think a higher appetite for creative risk has been core to the PlayStation philosophy from the start.

From my history that looms large is PaRappa the Rapper, which I don't think any other platform holder at that time would have considered or supported.

The other thing to point to, which sometimes gets a little lost or perhaps we don't get as much credit for, is one of the reasons you see such diversity in the first party offering from Sony is because of the diversity of the development teams and resources that we have, and the fact they are so evenly dispersed into different cultures and different geographies around the world.

We are unique in being as strong as a development powerhouse in Japan as we are on the West Coast in the US, or in Europe.

Heavy Rain has a particularly European sensibility about it. You can achieve that only if you've got significant development resources and expertise in those geographies and informed by those cultures.