The source implies more than he is saying. Without exclusives, there is no difference between the consoles except for their extras.
My confusion rests in the idea that something like BluRay is more important than the games selection, but according to that recent article on purchase reasons, BluRay is the main deciding factor for ps3 purchase at a measure of 63%.
Looking at this picture logically there are two possible avenues.
A) Sony rep is talking shite
B) Sony exec is right, and we need to reevaluate everything, from vindicating BluRay to re-examining profits. If games are not the scope of the ps3, why do we look at the games section of the financial reports?
Personally, I think he's right... but only in the context of ps3 and 360. The HD twins are so similar that the purchase of either system is well-founded. It's not like back in the day when SNES and Genesis were so fundamentally different, or when N64 and ps1 and dreamcast had almost completely exclusive gaming portfolios. It's obvious that games alone are able to differentiate the consoles. This is why Wii is the big winner this gen. It's different, in every way. A wii purchase is not just for one game. Every game on the wii is either exclusive, or tailored to the system. It is obviously of higher value.
So yes, I agree with him.
