But... it didn't come out first, so that argument is pointless. Its like saying "OS X is sooo much better, if it came out first, no one would've bought Windows 95." Don't fault Microsoft for betting that a year headstart would be of greater benefit than making the most technologically capable (and most expensive) machine.bballboy986
Well spoken. Winning the console war is not about who has the meanest, or most advanced machine; Microsoft learned that last time around when the PS2 gave everyone else an ass whooping.
I used to be a Sony fanboy, converted from Nintendo (64) when I bought my PSone, but Microsoft completely won me over with the original Xbox, and they still have me convinced I prefer my 360 over a PS3. They did not do that with hardware, they did that with great games, quality, and good customer service. (and Xbox Live, of course.) Of course, I kept my PS2 plugged in for MGS, FF, and all other great Sony exclusives, but with talk of MGS4, FFXIII, Assassin's Creed, and other titles going multiplatform, I think I am everyday less certain I'll buy a PS3. (In my opinion, losing exclusive titles shows lack of faith in Sony's console from developers and publishers.)
Sony has a rough road ahead of them to make it to the top once more. More than simply getting the consoles out there, they need to re-establish some of the confidence publisher's had on the Play Station brand last time around, secure the exclusives they still have, and deliver quality service. If Sony continues to build positive momentum off the Home and other announcements made during GDC, they will certainly come out on top.
As to the price of the PS3, consider this: Sony is very likely considering a life-span longer than that of the PS2 for the PS3, probably around 6-7 years. That taken into account, the price doesn't seem as much in the long run. (That is if what they talked about in the previous years about extending the PS2's and its follower's life spans is still valid.)
Log in to comment