bardicverse said:
I have personal experience with the author of this editorial, and I can tell you that he's a complete Sony fanboy, and has been writing propaganda bits for over 5 years now. Take him as seriously as you would Borat. |
I am not surprised as I thought, while reading the article, that it was an argument often put forward by Sony fan, but the last line was the definite facepalm clincher that put him in ultra fanboy territory.
About the article:
Did Sony plan to use the PS3 as a trojan horse for Blu-Ray? Definitely.
Did they deliberately sabotage the PS3's success to do so? Of course not.
Does anybody with more than 2 functioning brain cells think Sony would have preferred to have the current number of PS3+standalone blu-Ray players out there or would they have preferred to have the number of PS3's that would be out there if it was as successful as the PS2+standalone Blu-Ray players?
What sabotaged the PS3 was not a conscious decision on Sony's part but their arrogance to believe that they could cram an expensive blu-Ray player (at launch time) and an expensive new type of CPU and be remotely as successful as the PS2.
Unfortunately for Sony, they were wrong about their customers' willingness to buy at such a high price and so not only have they fallen from grace far more than if a less powerful PS3 had been sold for $300 at launch (or $300-$400 like the 360) as it would then be much more competitive with the Wii thanks to their brandname, but the success of Blu-Ray over HD-DVD was but a pyrrhic victory as it remains a high-end niche product against DVD.
Will it eventually sell more than DVD? Probably, but its price (players and average movie price) by then should be very similar to DVD's so that the high margin sales of early sales will have been cannibalized by the loss laden PS3 and now by the sagging economy, leaving only future sales with little margin to try to profit from.
