What I don't get is how 'ahead of it's time' is the Playstation 3 vs. the Xbox 360 when the PS3 came out a year later and cost $200 more for the base price....What could the 360 of had with such a high price tag?
My guess is it would have an HD-DVD drive and more RAM probably around 640MB instead of 512MB.
I agree early success for a console can be crucial, but the PS3 is already pretty successful in terms of install base compared to those consoles. Actually if Sony would have sold much more they could have lost billions of extra dollars on hardware investments.
Which is the chief reason why I feel the PS3 was poorly designed. When you launch a year after your competitor with a 50% ($200) higher price point, there should not be a debate on which console possess more power over two years after the fact. Not only that, Sony failed to meet it's initial sales projections, so they were planning on selling "much more."
For all of our back and forth, I have yet to see any solid reasoning for the PS3 to suddenly sell at PS2 levels to reach yours or Crazzyman's sales projections. I said way back in 2006, that price will always be an albatross around Sony's neck and that has bore out over the past couple of years. The fact that the PS3 will reach mass market pricing last is what will keep it from reaching your outlandish sales goals.
As I've said before, the consumers that pushed the PS1 and PS2 to their astronomical sales totals are buying Wii's and 360's as we speak. These casual consumers are single console owners for the most part. By the times these consumers look to buy new hardware the successors of the Wii, 360, and PS3 will be on their minds.