Originally Posted by jdg345
Perhaps, but a Pioneer player isn't subsidized to the same level as a PS3 is, or is it?
I've seen no indication Pioneer players are subsidized.
There has been much discussion that the PS3 Subsidy is 'okay' because it follows the standard model of a Game Console and Sony would make back it's money on Games. If a sizable group of PS3 owners bought it solely as a media center and aren't going to buy games, is this truly what Sony wanted?
It's a double-edged sword - Sony certainly won't see the sort of revenue return in gaming license fees for PS3's sold to those who primarily use it as a Blu-ray player than the traditional game console business model has supported. On the other hand, Sony is probably the single company who stands to gain the most by Blu-ray's success (since they participate in all aspects of the business, from players to content to authoring to replication), so ultimately every Blu-ray player sold is still to their benefit.
How are the other CE's to compete with this model?
There are many drawbacks to the PS3 relative to standalone players (lack of analog support, lack of easy remote integration, game console "stigma", lack of front panel display, form factor, etc.). For a $300+ price difference many consumers were happy to put up with those drawbacks. Now that we're routinely seeing standalones at a price below that of the PS3 and as standalone capabilities increase standalones become a more compelling option relative to the standalones.
If the proof is in the pudding, as you suggest, are the Studios really happy with the current attach rates?
I contend that the PS3 makes attach rates far less useful a number than total format sales.