It's like they got scared of Microsoft and started focusing on the Xbox 360 instead of the PS1 and 2 fan base.  That, and as already stated, Blue Ray was a mistake for the console (though great for the format).

First of all, let's just make it clear that the PS3 is selling well. I'm sure not as well as SONY would have hoped, and it's still in third. But the important factor here is that consumers still want the PS3 with demand and sales increasing.

A more accurate question here is that why is the PS3 still in third place with weekly seasonal sales? As some have already pointed out: economy and most expensive console which is the short answer. To elaborate, the casuals are driving the market whether you like it or not, and this is becoming more and more true as each newer gen precede the last in a growing market.  Let me define casual and hardcore in context. Casuals are those who see gaming as a legit means of entertainment but it's not in the forefront of their list of entertaining means, willing to spend less resources and efforts to get the most out of gaming. The hardcore not only sees gaming as legit, but it's also one of their defining lifestyles if not THE defining lifestyle. And when possible they are willing to pump the efforts and resources into maximizing their enjoyment out of gaming. And let me also point out that the hardcore overall respects the options of gaming, knowing that there is diversity in gaming so reasonably credit is given when credit is due.

The great thing about the console market is that it's increasing as a mainstream form of entertainment and has come a long way as an electronic babysitter and a geeks paradise. The double edged sword here is that the casuals are not willing to make the investment and effort the hardcore would when needed. This by no means implies that more expensive = hardcore because it doesn't. What this means it that if something is worth it to you, you will do it if and went it's possible. If you are more of a hardcore baseball fan, you'll probably go to more baseball games and spend more money on baseball memorabilia. If you are a casual football fan, probably not as much. So if something appeals to you that ends up relatively inexpensive then still you are getting what you want for less.  And if something appeals to you that's expensive and you can do it, go for it because it's what you want. Better to wisely spend more on something you want than to entirely waste what was spent less on something you don't want.

It's possible to say that a casual gamer can be thoroughly impress with all three consoles and think that all consoles are worth its retail price. But when you have the economy the way it is, it makes you think to cut back on most everything including entertainment which can make the difference between buying a $250 Wii or a $200 - $300 360 over a $400 PS3 because entrainment takes a back seat over frivolous spending.

And Mrstickball please be careful with your constant anti-PS3/SONY trolling ESPECIALLY as a VGC contributor. I do not expect the PS3 to appeal to every consumer. But as a gaming console alone, the PS3 still has its appealing quality exclusive offerings that do make the PS3 worth its purchase. It might not be for you, but please learn to be respectful as a gamer to others.

Yes, the PS3 is in third place, but I'm glad to see all consoles having a greater demand which grows the console market as a whole. I just hope the casuals are not too great to "force" the developers to neglect the hardcore.

howso?

Blue Ray has a very limited fan base, caused delays, slowed down loading times, and greatly increased the cost of the PS3.  While Blue Ray on the PS3 was great for the movie format war, people that didn't care about HD movies would rather save money and buy the cheaper 360.  Blue Ray is an added expense with a limmited apeal and some negative aspects.  If everybody wanted a Blue Ray player, the story would have been different.

Not if you work for Nintendo though.

you should really look into the actual cost of the blu ray diode in the ps3 before you cite cost.  Part of the purpose of blu ray is for storage space to prevent multiple disc releases as they saw it as potentially problematic.  And slow load times?  Not any slower than disc read times on my 360.  Your entire reasoning is both opinion and BS.

the topic is about the PS3 though...$400 is a hefty price right now for a video gam system.

Blue Ray has certainly come down in price, but it's still pricey and was a significant factor in the PS3's high intorductory price.  As of April this year, a Blue Ray player cost Microsoft about $100 where a DVD drive costs $20.  While the costs for Sony could be cheaper, divisions in large companies rarely give eachother price breaks (each division has goals to meet, and having worked at a few fortune 500 and fortune 100 companies, I know it's often cheaper to work with a third party than it is to work with other groups in the same company).  I don't think the actual cost for Blue Ray for the division that produces the Play Station would be much cheaper than what Microsft has to pay.  Blue Ray is still a factor.

You're right that I don't know exactly what the load times on the PS3 or 360 are.  I'm repeating information heard in this forum about installs on the PS3 being required due to the slow speed of Blue Ray where installs are not required on the Xbox.  I do think that Blue Ray will be much more practical on the next set of consoles.