I think the mistakes in estimating the power of the Cell and subsequently the redesign to include a GPU which then introduced the RAM limitations ultimately cost them very dear this gen. The Bluray laser issues was in hindsight perhaps expected a little but certainly worth a gamble on including the technology. The overly complex CPU though was always going to hamper the PS3 for years, especially given Sony's track record of development toolkits meant it was going to be very hard to extract the most from the architecture.

I think they made some mad design choices including too much hardware also, they could arguably have stripped $100 off the PS3 at launch by getting rid of the useless tat like memory card and the extra USB slots.

All in all, they needed to launch in their original launch window they planned and with a lower pricepoint.

Everyone's an expert.

Not all the time NiKKoM....

Its probably not PS but the cultural shift... Nah maybe not.

BTW: They could have removed Blu-ray which equals to less price. Then its reputation could have carried the sales even further.

This is my opinion only but whatever: I think the only thing that kept Ps3 alive was its reputation from the 5th and 6th gen.

I personally think that it was more of the value for money once the price has dropped, when it reached sub $400 - £250-275, only then I could justify it as a worthy investment. Had it been similarly priced to 360 at the time, I would have brought it in an instant, however the difference was around £125 - $200 at the time of my purchase, same probably with ALOT of people. If you could play most of the games that are offered by 3rd parties - COD, Fifa 12 etc, why would you invest in a console that was considerably more at the time, of course now price gap is smaller, and the sales correspond to that, as now, it is a better value for money.

Although I love my Blu-rays, pretty much this.

Plus they should have worried less about Other OS, having a trillion USB connections, etc., and focus on having backwards compatibility instead.

made the console more dev friendly

secured some past and current 3rd party exclusives like assassins creed, tomb raider, resident evil, silent hill, wwe smackdown series, DMC, and possibly some of rockstars games, also have or add more western cars to GT5

developed exclusive FPS and TPS that could match halo and gears features and value

PS2 B/C

@ Those saying that Sony should have cut Blu Ray to reduce costs - Sony would prefer a successful disc format to a successful console.

- No Blu-ray (lowers costs, wouldn't have been delayed until 2006, easier development for games)

- Launched same time as 360 (360 wouldn't have had a 1 year head-start)

- $300 for the entry level PS3, $400 for the bigger hard drive (Lower price = higher demand...duh)

- Better advertising (PS3 had retarded advertising pre-Kevin Butler)

- Better games at launch (Needed more than just Resistance for people to buy it)

- PS2 B/C for good (Good feature to have)

Yea i agree.

Not only that but if Sony were to take out the Blu Ray format from the PS3, it would drastically decrease the quality of their games. (Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, GT5 ect)