Yeah, I was afraid it was in response to me, because I never said I didn't have problems with the PS2.  I said I have not had any problems with the PS3, and most people haven't.  I had to replace my PS2 at one point but have not had a problem since then.  I know some that had disc read errors and replaced their consoles when there are ways to fix that.

So, again, I ask what it was in response to.  I'll say it again:  I have not had any problems with the PS3, PS Three, Playstation 3. 

i think bdbdbd (and me) responsed to this sentence from you:

"... and we have all documented cases where most consoles had problems"

i personally had the feeling like you want to say the snes made as many problems as the ps2.

but i think it is a mistake from my bad english :)

Ah, sorry for the confusion if that is the case.  I just meant that it is rare for consoles to not have any problems at all.  johnlucas explained that he did not like Sony because it is known to have a bad reputation for console reliability so I defended the PS3 while pointing out that past Nintendo consoles had many problems as well. 

Could you please stop saying that. How many times does the man have to say that he played and actually enjoyed games on other consoles for you to acknowledge it?

As for the question of discussion.  I agree with you.  I can understand the concept of going ALL the way with the PS3 - a consol that does it all at a premium price.  But as you pointed out, there would be no point, since the PC is much better suited to the task and will out do any consol due to its upgrade path.

I agree with the general consensus here, that it would have been better to drop some of the high-tech gadgetry (ie. BR ) and sell it at a price point closer to $300.  If that was the case it would have sold like hot cakes.  Sony had a huge and growing user base that were itching for the next Playstation – any reasonably priced consol would have been an instant best seller.

Ok, I'll change it to "I couldn't have standed owning only nintendo consoles." Btw, he called into question Sony's business practices, but it was Nintendo's business practices (and bad ones) that led to Sony leading. Nintendo charged a high premium for catridges, censored 3rd party games (Mortal Kombat sweat, anyone?), and generally didn't seem to care about 3rd parties for the N64. Now, they won't let 3rd parties handle Wii's online code until they release their own online game (finally).

I agree that blu-ray was the riskest move of this generation. We'll see if it pays off for Sony in the long run, because even if the PS3 fails blu-ray could succeed because of the move.  Had they released a more expensive console, even fewer blu-ray drives would be out there.

Yep, a more expensive console would have been worse for PS3 and BR. But the at the way things stand there is still unnecessary risk. It’s true that even if PS3 fails, BR might go on to win. But why risk losing a market (videogames) where you have basically full control to make gains in a market (HD format) where you may or may not succeed? Would format royalties be THAT much more profitable than dominance in the videogame industry?

I have actually had 3 PS2's since european launch.

But to the point, I have heard rumours of a PS3 with a 250GB hard drive. Maybe this will be the PSX2, with the additional HDMI port and ethernet ports, and others, so that it becomes a hub for the house, which other things run off.

Anyway, I think that Sony should have finalised the PS3 earlier so that developers had a lot longer to make brilliant games for. It is clear that the PS2 is on its last legs. I hace read that GoW 2 stretched the PS2 to its limit, and it was clear that Sony neaded to join the nex-gen war before the 360 had an unasailable lead, especially as the rapid increase in HDTVs is happening now, and many people will decide how to get their HD content, and if there is only one option if they want HD gaming, they are going to get that. The only reason that people are thinking of things like this, is because of the poorish launch of the PS3. However, it is clear that the sales will pick up later this year with the large price drop and the influx of great exclusive games, as well as the brilliant multi-platform games (Assasins Creed and GTA IV will increase the sales of next-gen consoles).

But the problem with this strategy is this:

Who will make games for a console that will only sell (maybe) a million a year? Because that's how many the PSX would have sold. Why spend $10-$20 million to do all that work if your audience will be just a couple of million people (of which you'll be lucky to get a quarter of). This means that the high graphics games will go only to MS.

Remember, nobody ever made games for PSX, they just made games for PS2 which PSX happens to be able to play. The incentive for the PSX is that you just need one piece of equipment for all your needs. But that logic only applies to people who need all PSX's features.

I wrote a price barrier essay already in one of the other threads, so I don't want to write it again. But the problem is that PS3 solves a problem that doesn't really exist for the mass majority of the PS2 owners looking to upgrade, the all in one entertainment center. They probably should have gone a more peripheral mode so that they can undercut Xbox's price. Cutting out the BR drive alone cuts like, iirc, $200 off of manufacturing costs and if they accepted the same loss / unit as they are now, they could have release PS3 at a $299/$399 price point. With this and their strong install base and power of the cell, they have a really compelling story.

If they did this, they would have had less production issue because they only have one rare component and though they might not have been able to flood the market, but they would have been able to convince people to get the PS3 without a massive library of games simply because of the PS name, like they projected.

However, the problem with BR is that it is something that definitely could have been an add-on (like MS did) or built into a later SKU. Sony, with its larger install bas, can comfortably apply all the successful strategies their lesser competitor come up with a little later because of their established position and have enough volume to undercut (a popular MS strategy, btw). If PS3 came out without BR, BR might have lost the next gen media battle but would have won the console war. Given that the console gaming industry is going up much faster than movie industry and more lucrative, Sony should have picked their battles.

Instead, Sony wanted it all and they are going walk away with nothing (except that BR might win the next gen media battle)

Don't forget the PS2 problems didn't surface until awhile after it launched, just after all those warranties expired.  I'm on my third PS2 right now and I def won't be getting a PS3 until it's been out for at least two years to make sure there's no problems this time (that and waiting for massive price drops).