The Washington Times didn't take the news of Sony's poor Playstation sales well. They're calling the sales fumble internal sabotage, and they're hopping mad about it.
Sure the Playstation 3 didn't do so well last month, selling 378,000 console sales in November, down from 466,000 last November. And the PS2 also saw a drop in sales, with the company moving less than half what they did last year.
XBox 360 has made serious inroads by dropping the price of its core system to $199. So how did Sony respond?
By releasing a new version of the PS3 ... that's $100 more expensive. Yes, it comes with a game, and yes, it has more hard-drive space, to which I respond: Who cares? Was the marketplace clamoring for more memory from the PS3? Is that why its market penetration is so low compared to its predecessors and competition? What were the Sony execs thinking?
Times' Sonny Bunch goes on to talk about the PS3's lack of Netflix support, what he calls Sony's poor marketing of Blu-ray, his point seems to be that "Sony seems bound and determined to do everything in its power to hinder the market penetration of the system in particular and Blu-ray in general."
The column begs the question, is the Playstation 3 destined to be the Gamecube of this generation of consoles? Maybe there is some truth to the old adage that you can't really have three successful consoles on the market.