So the only reason the PS3 hasn't gone through the roof and sold more than the PS2 and Wii combined is that it's expensive? That's the only reason you can come up with?
I was really hoping for an insightful analysis. Instead I got a complete rehash of the price argument with an invented reason to ignore the fact that the Xbox 360's arcade model has the lowest pricepoint. Couldn't it possibly be considered that what the Playstation 3 offers isn't actually what people want? And that that is part of the reason it's not selling well?
I feel that excusing Sony for their appalling sales this generation simply because of the price is a stupid rationalization. Their machine is not only the most expensive on the market, it's also the most expensive to manufacture. That's a choice Sony made. It turned out to be a really bad one. It should be 'They made bad choices' instead of 'They are doing well considering how bad choices they made'.
Consider this: All three companies made different choices. Nintendo's choice earned them good sales and high profits. Microsoft's choices earned them mediocre sales and no profits/big losses(?). Sony's choices earned them mediocre/bad sales and huge losses.
And what do you mean that Wii owners 'wouldn't buy an HD console because of their inept casuality'? Is it "Wii doesn't count because I don't want it" or "Wii owners are too stupid for their own good"? Both reasons are bad, though the latter is downright loathsome.
By the way, your Bluray vs. DVD argument makes no sense whatsoever. When the PS3 released it was also relatively cheap compared to other blu-ray players. It was only recently that the Blu-ray price sunk beneath the PS3 price.
So apart from the opening post being a complete disaster, I believe the PS3 is doing ok, but Sony isn't. They're actually doing pretty bad right now, last I heard.
This is invisible text!
