Was Blu Ray a mistake?

[windbane]

That Guy said:

So, Hus, since you're the resident Sony Respresentative, do you think the PS3 could have done better?

What would you have done different to launch the PS3? Or would you not have changed anything and its fine the way it is?

Hus has good points but they are often lost in his attitude and typing skills. I think launching with blu-ray was a brilliant way to win the format war, so it makes sense. As a gamer I am happy with the console's quality of design and I'll enjoy games on 1 disc that would take 3 DVDs very soon. Is that worth the extra money? Maybe not right now, but having a blu-ray player later will be nice and I think the games will be better for it. I'd like to correct some price quotes here, though. Looking at Casino Royale, the DVD is $16 and the Blu-ray is $27. Clearly, a lot of people bought it because it was in the top 10 on amazon at one point, and sold 100,000 copies sooner than any DVD movie did when launch dates are lined up. Looks like with The Curse of the Black Pearl the blu-ray is $24 and the DVD, a 3-disc special edition, costs $22. The 2-disc DVD is $14. That's a $2 difference in the 2 versions that have almost the same material. The blu-ray version has more than the special edition. Dead Man's Chest is...oh man, this is great...$19 for DVD, $24 for Blu-ray, but $25 if you want the collector's edition DVD version. In case you couldn't guess, the blu-ray version contains the collector's edition material and more. It seems to be cheaper than the DVD version. That surprised me. Those were on Amazon.com, in case you were wondering. The point is the price difference is dropping, and apparently for some movies it is actually cheaper to get the blu-ray version. I believe the black pearl may have been the same way had the DVDs weren't a few years older.