Having been born in the 70s I quickly became familiar with the Sony brand of consumer electronics and later the prowess of the Japanese in technological design and manufacturing. My first integrated stereo amplifier was one of the Sony brand. I still consider Apple's iPod the modern-day Sony Walkman. All the TV sets and PCs I have ever owned have been made by the Electronics arm of this multinational conglomerate. I formerly owned a Sony PlayStation 2 and currently reign over a Sony PlayStation 3.

The terms 'integrated stereo amplifier' and 'Walkman' may bear little meaning to younger readers: Nevertheless, their use suffices to demonstrate that the powerhouse of Sony Corporation (to which SCEI currently belongs) has been around for a long time and I dare say is hopefully here to stay.

Tremendous plausibility may be found in the notion of my unquestionable status as a huge fan of Sony's products. Indeed, many who claim to know me swear by this conclusion. I flatly deny such status but shall refrain from raising any further to my own defense.

I enjoy options. I enjoy value. In my profession of information technology and video, I frequently recommend the use of Microsoft's VC-1 over that of ITU's H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) for HD applications despite my penchant for global standardization. From a purist's perspective, I prefer Linux as an OS but hardly consider it to stack up against the widespread availability of applications for Windows. In my world as an audio enthusiast, I regard Velodyne for excellent depth and fidelity in bass but have never been disappointed by Paradigm. I bask in the surge of John Coltrane's energy but caress my ears with the timeless warmth of Stan Getz: Options are good. Value is good.

Far more often than not, the significance of product intricacies is eclipsed by overall context when it comes to my decision making. Context is always relative and never absolute and therefore ensures an appreciable element of volatility in my decisional outcomes. Product variety articulates with changing situations and I hence welcome markets of diverse products and competition amongst brands.

This also mitigates my attention to feature vs. feature 'head-to-head' product comparisons: Preoccupation with detailed specifications as opposed to overall functionality and practical capability. Products are systems: Their final performance depends upon the overall interaction of their elements not on each element in isolation. As a result, the focus on detailed product specifications frequently proves misleading as regards to a product's actual performance in the field: Manufacturers certainly know how to massage the presentation of 'specifications' in support of product marketing.

The situational nature of my choices spawns more food for thought: My perception of the fundamental role of a product poses a prerequisite to my contextualization of it in the kaleidoscope of my life: What is the product? What is it to me?

Instructively, my response to this critical question does not always concur with what the manufacturer claims the product should be and the role it should play in my life.

In revisiting my purchase of my Sony PlayStation 3, why did I choose to shell out some 600 US bucks for the launch 60 GB version? Why did I not choose Microsoft's Xbox 360 that was significantly less expensive, had comparable 'next-gen' bells and whistles, already one year 'mature' and accompanied by a very appealing slate of titles? Am I truly a Sony loyalist in denial? Do I have insurmountable reservations about Microsoft?

Like many others I pondered the potential of the Cell Broadband Engine. FLOPS for the simulation of protein folding and intensive gravitational field calculations certainly sounded impressive but had little impact as regards to my personal way of life. I further thought of the four USB inputs, the auto-sensing wired LAN and 802.11g wireless LAN capabilities, the 'free' PlayStation Network and the future of BD vs. HD DVD. (No doubt, many of us can recall the circumstances of the DVD-A vs. SACD fiasco!) I even considered the potential of the PS3 in satisfying any latent desire for a true multimedia entertainment hub of unprecedented convenience: A notion ardently advocated by SCEI.

At best, these considerations proved supportive but not essential drivers of my decision. At the end of the day I was faced with my love of gaming and my ownership of a considerable library of PS2 titles. The PS3 promised a wealth of intriguing games (Heavy Rain, MGS4, LBP and the potential of GOW3) that uniquely appealed to my personal tastes: Pivotal. Although I benefited from the potential option of retaining my PS2, the Emotion Engine hardware in the first generation of PS3s permitted me to give my PS2 away without my sacrificing my enjoyment of several treasured PS2 titles: The clincher. I saw the PS3 as a gaming console. Other functionality proved ancillary.

The importance of my perception of a product's role also governed my former acquisition of a Sony PlayStation 2 and the significance of creative content in contrast to hardware platform. The PS2 marked my entry into the 'modern' world of console gaming. At the time I secured my PS2, Sony owned the vast majority of the console market and as a result, was associated with the broadest range of excellent DVD ROM gaming software content. Nintendo's GameCube had a much smaller market share and arguably secured a niche that had little appeal to many older gamers like me. Microsoft's Xbox was yet to exist. My decision was a no-brainer.

In its day, the PS2 may have also been touted as a multi-purpose, multimedia hub of sorts: It featured the ability to play music CDs and movie DVDs. The PS2 featured an optical output for AC-3 audio (nice!) and also handled Dolby Pro Logic audio. It was able to yield 480p video – a definite plus for high action content! However none of these considerations injected significant influence over my buying choice.

Therein lays a caveat: How influential is a product's posited multi-functionality over my buying choice? What are the postulates regarding the relationships between multi-purposefulness in the augmentation of perceived product value? The periodic validation of these relationships may prove indispensable to product manufacturers and customers alike.

Why did I not consider the PS2 when I was in the market for CD and DVD players?Why did I not deem the PS3 to adeptly integrate the key constituents of cutting-edge, digital multimedia entertainment? Why do I not use my DVD player to listen to CDs or MP3s? Why have I never purchased an all-in-one print/scan/copy/fax machine? Why do I not care about a personal organizer, camera or video player on my mobile phone?

I hereby return to the issue of context: Our lives are occupied by a slew of products that serve various functional conveniences. The functionality (or potential functionality) of one product often overlaps that of at least one other. By default, my choice of product usage pegs on the best satisfaction of the particular purpose at hand. In this regard, I frequently prefer a product that excels at a focused purpose in contrast to one that barely satisfies many. In a utopian world, a multi-purpose product would shine in all its functions but in the real world my experience demonstrates otherwise. As a careful consumer I place little to no value on a product feature I shall seldom or never use: CDs sound way better on my CD player than they do on my DVD player and my DVD player did a far better job of rendering movies than my PS2 ever could.

As far as manufacturers are concerned, such suggests the need for diligent and continuous assessment of a product's real market. Not the market the manufacturer wishes the product occupies via product 'positioning'. The product's real market should govern the product's retail price as consumers shall set its value against those offered by other products in the same market. It also implies the innate complexities in building a business case for 'multi-functional' products: A manufacturer's erroneous association of its product with a given market can have catastrophic results: Maybe even more so in loss leader environments in which no profit accrues from direct sales but from the sales of associated products or services thereafter.

2008 was undoubtedly a good year for Sony's PlayStation 3: Despite these indisputable strides, Sony must forge ahead with extreme deliberation as it prepares to further navigate an increasingly precarious global economy. In the wake of the parent conglomerate's receding profits, SCEI must find a way to meaningfully burgeon its console sales. 2009 may very well pose a turning point in the confidence of third party gaming software organizations: What expectations shall prevail in the equation of the costs of R&D, licensing, product support etc. against the expectation of revenue from sales? Should they simply focus on the content's pre-launch console install base? Would such provide acceptable ROI? How much can they expect their content to sell the consoles themselves? No doubt, the questions continue.

With respect to the PS3, millions of us wait with bated breath to experience the culmination of this luminary technological masterpiece. On a less poetic and far more personal note, my position remains clear: The PS3 is a gaming console in which my interest shall be maintained for as long as there are unparalleled software titles.

As far as I am concerned, it remains about the games.

Merry Christmas PlayStation 3 and I wish you all the best in 2K9!

Dexter G. Lindsay

Avid Gamer

dexterlindsay@yahoo.com