joeorc,
VERY well thought response. How about this... I'll give you that the BR didn't add as much cost to the PS3 as other pricey components. However, the bottom line is still that Sony designed an extremely pricey system that was launched a huge price disadvantage that it hasn't been able to overcome. That being said, I would like to reiterate that the games haven't been there either. Sony lost most of its exclusives this generation, and that's hurt as much as the price for some core gamers.
FonzGemini,
Let me understand your point. You're acknowledging that the PS3 has low sales and is very pricey, but then using the fact that it's very pricey to justify the low sales, and then extrapilating that the GCN and Xbox would've sold much worse with the PS3's current price? I think it's common knowledge that cheaper systems sell better. Why do you think Nintendo has always priced their home system at $199.99 (before the Wii) at launch? Why do you think Nintendo original B&W gameboy dominated the handheld market for a decade despite being entirely inferior to the competition (such as the color Lynx and GG). It was price, followed by games. Sony doesn't have the low price, and they have comparable games to a cheaper competitor (X360) with fewer exclusives than last generation.
I wish people would stop trying to justify the high PS3 price and simply acknowledge that it was a bad business decision if they were hoping to be #1 this generation like Sony was for the past two generations. If their goal was to be #3 and have great hardware, then I suppose you can call it a win. Who truly believes Sony's goal was to be anything OTHER than #1 in sales though?! C'mon.... call a duck a duck and let's get on with it :)
Hardware is only a means to enjoy great games!
