[raiyu]

The article misses the point entirely. It wasn't about launching early, or not having enough games, or wait times.

It comes down to pricing.

In gaming, the same thing has always played out. The console that can deliver the best value wins.

$399 vs $299 is a huge difference. That's the equivalent of $500 vs $750 today.

And don't forget that this was a huge step up already from the $150-199 price point of Super Nintendo.

At the end of the day, when it comes to mass appeal, it isn't the better technology that wins, but the one that combines the best price and performance, and people always underestimate that price is the bigger factor than performance.

[mikeryan]

The article covers that fact pretty clearly at the end no?

[simonh]

You're blanking on the 99s. It's the difference between $500 and $666 today.

[kevinmgranger]

It's pretty ironic that Sony almost made the same mistake with the PS3 at $599.

I say _almost_, because it might have benefited Sony as a whole anyway.

[fl0wenol]

The fact that it was a Blu-Ray player saved it because families could justify the purchase for that feature alone (and typically tacked on the bluetooth remote too)

[kevinmgranger]

Exactly. It was almost the same strategy with the PS2: it was a ubiquitous DVD player when that was a novel concept.

[bsder]

People forget that the PS3 was BY FAR the cheapest Blu-Ray player for almost 18 months.