In my opinion, in order for the PS3 to follow the PS2's pattern to success the PS3 would have had to be released at $299 will full backwards compatibility ...

But as Andir said "woulda coulda shoulda" doesn't really matter much at all ...

EXACTLY. That's what I was trying to get across, but I explained it differently, but not simplified and easier to understand. I needed sleep when I made this thread to begin with. Your message was the point I was trying to get across.

Sony should've started with two lower-end models, but could announce that the HDD were upgradeable and the consoles could have kept all those features. I would love to get a PS3, but only if it had the Emotion Engine chip in it and were cheaper. Never owned a PlayStation (was leaning more to Nintendo products due to price and their games), don't get me wrong. They are okay systems like the rest, I just didn't have the money to buy them and some of the games didn't interest me (just Final Fantasy etc.).

Blu-Ray was a must as pushing the PS3 to be different from other consoles, in terms of using a new media storage system. It would affect the price of the console no matter what. Sony wanted to use it to prove to developers that it would be the future of media storage and guality.

This thread isn't about Blu-Ray itself, but is about if Sony had made 1 SKU or two and did nothing more to make a disaster out of what is happening now. If Sony did release only 1 unit, it would have sold A LOT more than it has now. Not as fast as the Wii, but by the way it is selling now (the 40GB unit and $399 pricepoint) from the original launch of the PS3.

I think they should have launched on day one with the same setup as now.
A 40G and 80G @ current prices ($450 and $550).
Both with fewer connections.
2 USB, 1IEEE, 1 Wireless, 1 composite, 1 component, 1 HDMI, 1 fiber optic audio, 1 composite audio.
1 wireless controller.
Both w/ Software BC solutions.
80G with some sort of pack in (Games and/or bluray)

Even though I think the PS3 would be better w/o bluray, Sony as a company needed to help the format war.

This way at $50 more than the Premium at the time, PS3 would of given you twice the HDD and bluray. That would have been much better. Still a loss leader, but, I guarantee they would have sold many more systems.

Plus, probably would have been the same in terms of money loss in each system, since I would have had fewer connections and less hardware, no PS2 chip. All add up when you are talking millions of systems.

For me, it would have been great for 1 SKU, no blu-ray, priced at $299.99. The original two SKUs didn't bother me as much but when they started the 3rd, then the 4th, it got confusing with who really got the best value since you can't compare the pricing in an apple to apple comparison.

not to be mean to lauch the ps3 as a seperate machine that is unique and to not copy anything anyone has ever done before. and for a cheaper price then maybe but sony cant think of their own ideas anyways.

Because we all know that size matters, but the way, how has Lair and Heavenly Sword done?

It's nice to have all that room but it's also nice to sell consoles. One of the biggest gripes about the PS3 is its insane price. People didn't want to pay $600 for a toy so the console did pretty bad in the beginning of the life cycle. They lowered the price again and while there was a small spike, the console still did bad. Finally after another price drop and the holidays the console is finally starting to do decently.

If Sony hadn't put BluRay in their console they could have started at a much lower price. If they started at the much lower price, more people would have bought the console. If more people would have bought the console then we would see more PS3 games and games staying exclusives. I guarantee that if Sony had started at $399 they would be in a much different place than they are today.