This here is the rason i wonder if they had a plan because if the ps3 had sold like the wii, but with no software moving, that would have meant bigger losses, becasue the dev cant do magic they have to learn how to use the tecnology and look at how long sony is taking to release KZ2, makes me wonder if the original plan was to sell low this entire gen?

@ theprof00

brandname: the ps3 is hurting the PS brand because it ha under perform in every aspect that was adversiced, no sells lead, no tecnology lead, no software sell lead, no network lead and no innovation lead.

blu ray: this only matters to people with hdtv and the ps3 is not an insentive to buy an HDTV, and plus the ps3 is not pushing blu ray anymore, blu ray is keeping sells a float and that was not the original plan

Fanbase: they reduced the fan base with the price.

Cell chip: overal system performance retric it so is not as sony  promised so the cell looks less powerfull thanks to all the systems bottle necks.

Home theater: console need to be of broad appeal HD is not currently of broad appeal, the ps3 is a gaming console, that is what most see a gamin console.

radha, this is only showing your bias here. I don't know why you are arguing with me when you asked a question in th OP and I am answering you.

I am taking the perspective of Sony before the release of the PS3 and you are taking the viewpoint of a gamer 2 years after the introduction of the PS3. I am taking my viewpoint because of the way you phrased your question "What was Sony thinking?".

I'm also going to forgive your english, but man, try harder.

My point was that he presented absolutely nothing which could be refuted. He simply asserted that Sony has some secret knowledge which nobody else has about this generation being twice the size of any previous generation. I didn't mean to suggest that things can't change, but he needs to present some kind of an argument as to why things have changed. From where I'm sitting, there's really no indication that the ~5 year cycle has been broken.

Yeah, I see what you are saying, but look at it this way. He's saying things will change, and you are saying it will not. Although you have a much better case than he does, you are both talking in absolutes.

I totally agree with you, but like I said, Sony does have access to a lot more information than we do, so honestly, unless we are there we can't be totally sure of anything.

No, I don't deal in absolutes, and I'm not sure kjj4t9rdad does either. In fact, I try to go out of my way to avoid speaking in absolute terms. I'm just talking about empirical evidence versus faith. The evidence suggests that this generation will probably last about as long as the previous four did, and I'm not inclined to believe otherwise just on the faith that Sony might know better than me. I'd like to see reasons.

The only reason I can think of is that Sony needs the extra five years to get the PS3 down to mass market prices and make profits off of their massive investments. But Sony doesn't get to decide how long a generation lasts all on their own, and certainly not when they're bringing up the rear in the console race. Microsoft is still hungry and it's training its guns on Nintendo and the casual/family space now.

Sure they made quite a few errors but you can't expect Sony to follow Nintendo business model in the gaming industry.

Because not only you must have the peculiar skills of Nintendo ( no ones is more profitable than Nintendo in the gaming industry ) but you must change the vision of your entire corporation when its success in the past decade was dependable by your current business model ( a risky one but until you are successful it is difficult to have the will to change ).

When Nintendo lost its leadership position in mid '90 it wasn't for arrogance or for the use of cartridges. The cause of Nintendo  demise was that they lost their original spirit, their way of thinking has become obsolete and the new trend arising at that tiem wasn't favorable to the Kyoto company.

The anticipation of PS3 was so high that it sold 600k first week in others with price of 600€. Probably the greatest launch week for console in Others. But after that 600€ price was to high for must peoples. At 400€ price point PS3 dominated 360 every where, now it needs to come down fast at 300€ or else Sony can lose huge market share.

My point is that the "Historical" evidence, emphasis on "historical", is only based on the interpretation and the viewpoint. Historical evidence says a lot of things, but one thing it doesn't do is predict the future.

Hell, historical evidence would have shown that nintendo would have gone the way of sega last gen.

I personally don't believe Sony does case studies.

What it ultimately comes down to is a matter of perspective, of course. Sony has, in recent years, become a product- and service-oriented business instead of a customer-oriented one. This is definitely highlighted nicely in the design decisions for the PS3. When you break it down, every major shortcoming in the PS3's release can be traced back to thinking of the product or the service it provides over the consumer. Sony opted for powerful hardware because the product would be more functional that way.

They opted to use Blu-Ray because it would simultaneously promote another product line of theirs and give an additional service to the product. They opted to make the Cell processor complex so that the product would be able to provide more services in the future. They kept devkits in short and expensive supply because it meant that they could control the supply of new products and services for their device more effectively. They didn't release before Microsoft because their existing products and services were still successful, and more to the point, waiting meant that they could look at Microsoft's product and make their product even more powerful and more service-worthy.

A product which is sold for the product's sake is basically like saying "look how awesome our product is". It's purely ego-stroking, showing that the product's manufacturer has no interest in the customer, only in the sale of the product. Conversely, customer-oriented products take into account what the largest number of customers want from the product, and are molded specifically to send the message "look how awesome our product makes you" to the customer. The difference is immense in the minds of the vast majority of potential consumers, who care more about getting something instantly gratifying than getting something inherently powerful.