how is it his choice when SONY put in BLU-RAY expensive for future profits?

KEn Kutaragi didn't drive PS into ground but BLU-RAY expensive price and SONY's decision to put it in for future royalties

I'm confused... I though Ken was AGAINST what the PS3 is today...

The difference is, PS3 was following the PS2.  Basically, the most popular console since well...the NES.  In theory, they should have just been able to put out a similar console for a similar price and just RAKE IN THE DOUGH.  In effect, SONY could have released something to the equivilant of the Wii and become the top console this gen.  But they did something completely different.  They doubled the price, quadrupled the graphical power, and focused on the 'Mature' market.

Does that mean that Nintendo and 360 weren't cutting into their marketshare?  Of course not.  And Nintendo may have still been able to pull off most if not all of what they did if Sony had done something different.  However, even from the beginning of when the PS3 came out, it was clear that it wasn't going to be a repeat of the PS2s success.  And it wasn't because of the Wii or 360 hurting it.  It was mostly people looking at their wallets and going ".....uh....I want the next Playstation...but I don't know if I want it $600 as much."

he just didn't like the integration of all the departments as one as it didn't give him his own control of the platstation department and this was done because of the DIGITAL ERA.

it also brought firing people as there was then single department was many type of works done for entirely SONY and not alone as PLAYSTAION,BRAVIA,WALKMAN,SONY ERICSSON,CYBERSHOT,etc

KenMax, that paragraph you quoted was just a step on the road to the point I was making, which was about how we judge individuals, not about the scale of the PS3's launch screw up.

Don't you agree with me that on top of Sony's screwups the competition was set to cut into their marketshare, one way or another? 

My point is, it's silly to try to put the blame on one person.  There was a lot going on.  Not to mention the fact that it looks pretty hypocritical in this context, to judge based on one gen when the players have been in the game for a few more rounds than that.

The PS3 does have bright future. But forgetting how bad the PS3 was mishandled thus far is silly. More than halfway through a generation and in a slowly increasing third place with massive losses for the most part was a screw up.Now I do think they will see gains, and likely beat MS,  excited about the games, but Sony trying to push the Cell like it's 2005 seems silly. PC titles eclipsed the power of the PS3 or any console years ago, to ignore that obvious fact and pretend otherwise shows the kind of hubris that got them thinking more than a handfull of people globall would pay $600 for a console. It's all about games, Sony has some of the very best. Selling the dated tech running them seems like a weird angle. I'd rather hear about great new IPs, media capabilities, or deals than some made up concept of magic dust powered fantansy. The Cell has proven to be a great CPU, that is clear. But to position it as industry leading 5 years later comes of as kind of sad. Tell it like it is, we already love what you make, don't make shit up on top of it. 

The PS3 has the best HD line-up for sure, but whitewashing the massive fuckups of Sony to getas many living rooms as possible is shamefull. They have done great things on the game side, too bad the PR is still so maddeningly out of touch.

You know the site has gone to shit when staff members create flame baits and showcase their fanboy nature  without shame and also to 'aid' them is the known fanbots of Ninty and MS,....sigh

lol some even said hey I'm not here to troll but it was folowed by posts that are simillar :P what a joke

Thanks Carl for taking a stand, respect 1

Same for Alic...thanks for acting how staff should...respect

OT: he is a legend for the brand...he created it to be one of the most recognized brands in the world of gaming...his last gamble didn't pay off? yea like no other corporation has taken gambles and had problems in the past right? Not ninty or MS for sure...the double standards of so called impartial specialists is pathetic..I'm outta this thread, waste of time

I agree we shouldn't blame him for everything.  I even said that ealier.  Multiple development groups made the PS3, not just one man (Ken).  However, I also feel that he's not entirely without blame.  A lot of the image of the PS3 came from his comments before launch.  And they didn't exactly ring true in the hearts of consumers.

First, the market has actually been in decline. Despite higher sales, three things have held the industry back

• Globilized video gaem market (not seen until the PS1)
• Higher populations
• Game buyers having higher disposable income

I'll find the quote, but Reggie mentions it here.

Let's look at the install base for the last four generations. First thing to note: As recently as about a year ago, projections were made that the current generation would reach 60 Million household penetration: Ain't gonna happen. Ain't gonna happen. Another couple tidbits: So this chart is pure number of units sold. It doesn't take into account duplicate ownership, and doesn't take into account population growth. You overlay those two facts to get a percent population with a console in the household, and that's what it looks like. 8 Bit years, 31% of households had a gaming system. This year, where is going to end up? Somewhere between 31-32%. The growth we have seen has been driven by population growth, and by duplicate ownership.

Find it here.

Remember that Sony could not do what the Wii did. First, Nintendo expanded the market, something Sony never considered. Also, the Wii had the Wii Remote. Would people buy a PS2 with the same power of the Wii and that's it?