What would you of changed if you where kutaragi?

[albionus]

People who wish the PS3 well seem to take Blu-ray's victory for granted but can anyone show me an article with actual sales figures and not just Sony claims of victory? All I can find is that in a 2 week period Blu-ray movies outsold HD-DVD by 2:1 but that was because only 2 HD-DVD movies came out (they came out first so more movies are out overall) compared with some unspecified much greater number of Blu-Ray movies. I did find a story that noted "Universal Studios Home Entertainment announced at a press conference at CeBIT that it has signed up to the European HD-DVD Promotional Group along with Toshiba, Microsoft and Studio Canal." and that "The adoption of either high definition format has been rather lacklustre to date, however, the major hurdle being the high price of players. Blu-ray's gains in the battle have mostly been attributed to Sony's inclusion of a Blu-ray drive in its PlayStation 3 gaming console. However, as the price of players decreases and adoption becomes more widespread the backing of major studios such as Universal may swing the tide in the favour of HD-DVD." http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2186241/universal-signs-hd-dvd Without hard stats (if you have them please let me know) at this point it doesn't seem to me that a winner or potential winner can be called. That being said including Blu-ray in the PS3 definitely helps Sony in the long run, if it can survive the lower console sales and losses involved with that decision. This isn't like with DVD's where everyone and their mother could instantly realize a benefit with DVD's over VHS, and the PS3 doesn't cost $300 like the PS2. It took many years for stand alone DVD players to drop below the PS2 in price, Blu-ray players will probably do it to the PS3 by Christmas or next spring. At any rate I agree with those who would argue that Blu-ray isn't the greatest problem the PS3 has. What would I do as head of Sony? Firstly, shut up the "people should work extra to buy our system", "Aussies have to understand Australia is small", "Britons wouldn't believe the truth if you told it to them" managers. I've long thought that Sony's main problem this round was that they seemed to get MHz envy. The 94 MHz N64 could run rings around the 34 MHz Playstation graphically. The 485 MHz Gamecube and 733 MHz Xbox could do likewise to the 294 MHz PS2. The fact that Sony far outsold them despite being weaker didn't seem to matter, this time the PS3 would conquer all in every category. An ok ambition until the problems, and therefore the expenses, with Cell and RSX began to crop up. At that point Sony should have realized that it was its brand and games that counted not its hardware and started a crash course of grabbing off the shelf components like Microsoft did with the Xbox. Take something like a 2 GHz Core Duo processor, an X1650 video card, 256 MB system/128 MB video RAM, and a PS3 logo (I just made that up so the prices may not work). It could still handle 720P with ease and could have been sold at $400 or maybe $300 if Sony really wanted to play for keeps. Would Sony fanboys be shouting from the forums that graphics are the end all be all of video games right now? Nope, but they wouldn't need to since that PS3 would have actually sold well.