Sony's Playstation 3 Blunder

A few years ago, Sony was on top of the gaming world.

The Playstation 2 was a resounding success over its competitors, Nintendo's Gamecube and Microsoft's original Xbox, and it seemed like no matter what problems Sony might be facing, their video game division was still going at it strong, posting great numbers and selling consoles by the million.

The reason was obvious. The Playstation 2, while not as technically gifted as its competitors, had a massive amount of great games that undeniably brought in gamers from all over the world. In fact, the Playstation 2 is still kicking out massive hits like God of War 2 despite being an aging system left behind in a massive console war. It consistently sells extremely well, as do its games. It's relatively inexpensive to produce (for a gaming console, anyways) and it's a blast to play.

It didn't matter that the console wasn't powerful, it was popular and relatively inexpensive. It provided a great gaming experience without damaging the pocketbook too badly.

Why, then, did Sony switch horses midstream?

The Playstation 3, Sony's follow up to what possibly was the greatest video game system of all time, was the ploar opposite of its younger brother; strong, expensive, and exclusive, it cut off the casual gamer and established a place as a hardcore behemoth without many games to substantiate its power. Gamers scoffed at its hefty price tag, and now the system line the shelves, despite an initial lack of supply caused by greedy eBay speculators. Nobody wants a system designed for exclusivity, and that's what the Playstation 3 is.

The high price tag was ostensibly justified by the inclusion of the Playstation 3's ability to play Blu-ray discs, a form of media only feasible for the wealthy (or at least those with an $1100 HDTV). Its games, $60 each, speak only to the tastes of the hardcore gamer (and the Xbox 360 caters better to that interest). It's just not a consumer machine.