If Sony launched the ps3 without Blu Ray and the Cell for $299-350...

...the 360 would be dead before it hit the water.

I'm saying this as a hardcore lemming.

Without the cell and blu ray sony could have:

-Launched day and day with the 360 nullifying the 360's advantage with developers learning the architecture first

-a conventional cpu would have stopped all the headaches devs have had with the ps3, the inferior multiplats, and games would have come sooner. another advantage for the 360 nullified.

-the year the 360 got a head start gave it a huge advantage in building its brand name. i barely knew anything about the xbox or heard anyone talk about it last gen. microsoft entered a free market and dumped advertising free of any competition

-without blu ray sony could have easily launched the ps3 at $299-350 making it cheaper than the 360, more feature-packed and with free online.

-launching with the 360 would have made ms look really bad for 2 reasons. a)sony could steal a lot of momentum as soon as people became aware of the rrod. there would be no price advantage, no hardware advantage or advertising advantage for ms, only a load of frustrated customers with the option to switch to ps3. b) people will still have the ps2 and xbox1 in mind when chosing their next gen console, ps2= epic library, xbox1= epic fail.

The blu ray and cell cost sony a fortune and so far they've lost over 3 billion dollars since the ps2. some analysts are predicting sony won't be able to make back all the money that was lost with the ps3 this gen. sony went way too high end for the regular buyer and we really haven't seen bewildering and that can't be done on the 360 to justify the price tag.

If it was cheaper, it would sell more. The ps3 and 360 over the past year have been going back in forth.

I mean, I really enjoy the ps3, and MGS4 is probably GOTY, but the 360 to me still has the most versitile library.

PS3 has LBP, which I can't wait for. But I see so many threads about hte ps3's line up, and it's biger than the 360's, and everyone praises it. However, Other than LBP, SOCOM, and Resistance 2, there really isn't too much to look forward too until spring.

BD costed Sony a fortune, but in the long term, it will give them, a fortune. Yes, with a lower price SW would be dead as of now. Even the Wii would be having a tight fight.

But Sony opted to push their new techs for future incomes, companies work that way, they think of the longer picture, and not so much in short time.

We will have to see what happens in 4 years when the next gen launches.

yep, agreed.

But I think too that BR is a long term investment that will benefit Sony in a great way in 3+ years

yep, agreed.

But I think too that BR is a long term investment that will benefit Sony in a great way in 3+ years

Giancar

TBH, I got tired of getting a regular movie for $30, so I stopped. I hardly rent movies, and I ussually get em from online.

I don't know, blu ray from what I hear is doing decent.

Good post.

The biggest issue for me is the fact that Sony didn't make the cell solely for gaming (as far as familiar architecture for devs). I'm very glad I have a Blu-Ray player in my PS3 though.

BD costed Sony a fortune, but in the long term, it will give them, a fortune. Yes, with a lower price SW would be dead as of now. Even the Wii would be having a tight fight.

But Sony opted to push their new techs for future incomes, companies work that way, they think of the longer picture, and not so much in short time.

We will have to see what happens in 4 years when the next gen launches.

kenshinhimura16

this is exactly where i think sony went wrong. the wii is the crappiest in terms of tech but it is killing. even the ps2 is still selling well and only 40k units behind the ps3. the mass market isn't interested in blu ray, cell, blu tooth etc. they want decently priced hardware with greeat content.

[QUOTE="Giancar"]

yep, agreed.

But I think too that BR is a long term investment that will benefit Sony in a great way in 3+ years

Squall18

TBH, I got tired of getting a regular movie for $30, so I stopped. I hardly rent movies, and I ussually get em from online.

I don't know, blu ray from what I hear is doing decent.

I'm a huge movie buff and I'm glad Sony implemented BR. BR movies are just too expensive now (even though I buy them).

[QUOTE="Giancar"]

yep, agreed.

But I think too that BR is a long term investment that will benefit Sony in a great way in 3+ years

Squall18

TBH, I got tired of getting a regular movie for $30, so I stopped. I hardly rent movies, and I ussually get em from online.

I don't know, blu ray from what I hear is doing decent.

well in 3+ years movies will be cheaper, hd tvs will be cheaper...and a lot of people want their physical copies of movies...

like me...

[QUOTE="kenshinhimura16"]

BD costed Sony a fortune, but in the long term, it will give them, a fortune. Yes, with a lower price SW would be dead as of now. Even the Wii would be having a tight fight.

But Sony opted to push their new techs for future incomes, companies work that way, they think of the longer picture, and not so much in short time.

We will have to see what happens in 4 years when the next gen launches.

mephisto_11

this is exactly where i think sony went wrong. the wii is the crappiest in terms of tech but it is killing. even the ps2 is still selling well and only 40k units behind the ps3. the mass market isn't interested in blu ray, cell, blu tooth etc. they want decently priced hardware with greeat content.

And thats where you are wrong. The mass console market is not interested in such technology. Sony is a multi-department company, they dont make only PlayStations, so they used their most popular item to place BD as the new format. We as gamers got the hit. Not the company, Sony will be cashing some big bucks soon, specially if next gen uses the format as the standard. The market is very interested in all those little things, but not in a console. Just look at how crap as the iPhone sold. According to research people dont use over 8% of a cell phone features, but the most sold ones are the ones with the most features.

Sony used the PS3 as the cannon meat, and it started to work for them.

PD: Not tot mention that by 2010 most 1st world countries will have switched to digital signals for their TVs, meaning more HD accessories sold too. We are paying them at high prices because they are what in marketing is called "Star Products", which in english is New Products. New Products are expensive. Also, Im not talking about the PS3, I already made my point regarding that matter in my first post, Sony decided to sacrifice some of their console users in order to cash that moeny from other fronts.

no questions about it, Sony needs to drop the price soon before its to LATE.PSP107

had sony launched the same year as MS they would not have been able to rip off ideas from XBL...supermechakirby

c'mon....try harder....

No the 360 wouldn't be dead because of the year head start,Online community and the two consoles would be similar. Ps3 and 360 being more similiar in terms of specs is a bad thing. Then it would have to really on the name to sell it. Please dont think 3rd wouldn't go multiplat they are bussiness.

you dudes and if sony this if sony that. SoNY is a bussiness, a sucessful in terms of consoles. Ps2 still selling, there is no rush for the majority of consumers go hd. Cell and blu-ray was bussiness plan. Their recovering from it because its a bussiness move and you have to take risk.

Also blu-ray isn't a bad thing because eventually poeple will start moving in to HD. I bought my ps2 for the dvd player and games. I'm gonna do the same for the ps3 after it gets some time grow.

lol, too bad that's not the case :P

It might have been like the PS2 and sold about 50 million or more doing away with both Nitnendo and MS like they did last time, but they didn't... so we'll never know.themyth01

there wouldn't be much to talk about considering ps1 and ps2 history. Current sistuation> this fictional one.

I would have to pretty much agree with TC. You make a lot of good points (although I still believe XBL to be far superior to PSN)

The only problem with everything you said is that it can only now be said having experienced what already happened. They didnt know Blu ray wouldnt be super popular (IMO its ahead of its time and overpriced) and the RROD issues could not have been predicted by anyone but MS (who knew about it before launch).

I would have to pretty much agree with TC. You make a lot of good points (although I still believe XBL to be far superior to PSN)

The only problem with everything you said is that it can only now be said having experienced what already happened. They didnt know Blu ray wouldnt be super popular (IMO its ahead of its time and overpriced) and the RROD issues could not have been predicted by anyone but MS (who knew about it before launch).

Bulova

I think you guys give the 360 less credit than its due. I think a blind man can see the xbl> psn too a certain extent.

If PS3 had been cheaper at launch, I'd own one.

As the owner of 12 consoles, and now an adult, I'm torn. This is the first time I've had to wait for a price drop to afford the console I want.

your a hardcore leming but you didnt know what a xbox was last gen??

FAIL

[QUOTE="Bulova"]

I would have to pretty much agree with TC. You make a lot of good points (although I still believe XBL to be far superior to PSN)

The only problem with everything you said is that it can only now be said having experienced what already happened. They didnt know Blu ray wouldnt be super popular (IMO its ahead of its time and overpriced) and the RROD issues could not have been predicted by anyone but MS (who knew about it before launch).

ff7isnumbaone

I think you guys give the 360 less credit than its due. I think a blind man can see the xbl> psn too a certain extent.

i don't think it's $50 better. If it was free then i could say that it is far superior. Also no dedicated servers is not very cool on xbl, psn atleast has some games w/ dedicated servers.

that would be so stupid because it would cost sony billions to do it.

for one they would have to pay to have the games on blu-ray and dvd.

then they would have to buy another chip to replace the cell so they have to pay for the cell and the new chip.

this would confuse there consumers.

you think mothers would now what the 2 different ps 3 and wich disc to buy.

plus this would make sony look worse because they have taunt the cell and the blu-ray.

sony also could not use dvd because they don't have compression like micrsoft does.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but the ONLY reason I own a PS3 is the blu-ray player. The 360 would still have the better game selection. You take away blu-ray, and what advantage would PS3 have? Why would you buy it over a 360?mnvike

You think the 360 would have still have a better game selection if the ps3 and 360 both launched at the same time?

...the 360 would be dead before it hit the water.

I'm saying this as a hardcore lemming.

Without the cell and blu ray sony could have:

-Launched day and day with the 360 nullifying the 360's advantage with developers learning the architecture first

-a conventional cpu would have stopped all the headaches devs have had with the ps3, the inferior multiplats, and games would have come sooner. another advantage for the 360 nullified.

-the year the 360 got a head start gave it a huge advantage in building its brand name. i barely knew anything about the xbox or heard anyone talk about it last gen. microsoft entered a free market and dumped advertising free of any competition

-without blu ray sony could have easily launched the ps3 at $299-350 making it cheaper than the 360, more feature-packed and with free online.

-launching with the 360 would have made ms look really bad for 2 reasons. a)sony could steal a lot of momentum as soon as people became aware of the rrod. there would be no price advantage, no hardware advantage or advertising advantage for ms, only a load of frustrated customers with the option to switch to ps3. b) people will still have the ps2 and xbox1 in mind when chosing their next gen console, ps2= epic library, xbox1= epic fail.

The blu ray and cell cost sony a fortune and so far they've lost over 3 billion dollars since the ps2. some analysts are predicting sony won't be able to make back all the money that was lost with the ps3 this gen. sony went way too high end for the regular buyer and we really haven't seen bewildering and that can't be done on the 360 to justify the price tag.

mephisto_11

I think sony being such a HUGE COMPANY,would have for sure hired its own analysts and carried out the reasearch.There are not fools to take such a big risk.They know alot more than you and your gaming magazines [;)].

[QUOTE="Bulova"]

I would have to pretty much agree with TC. You make a lot of good points (although I still believe XBL to be far superior to PSN)

The only problem with everything you said is that it can only now be said having experienced what already happened. They didnt know Blu ray wouldnt be super popular (IMO its ahead of its time and overpriced) and the RROD issues could not have been predicted by anyone but MS (who knew about it before launch).

ff7isnumbaone

I think you guys give the 360 less credit than its due. I think a blind man can see the xbl> psn too a certain extent.

I'm totally not giving the 360 less credit at all. I'm a 360 owner, and have been since launch. I only ever wanted a PS3 for FF13, and now they've eliminated that reason, so I won't be getting one at all.

I love my 360 and think its the greatest console this gen.

[QUOTE="ff7isnumbaone"][QUOTE="Bulova"]

I would have to pretty much agree with TC. You make a lot of good points (although I still believe XBL to be far superior to PSN)

The only problem with everything you said is that it can only now be said having experienced what already happened. They didnt know Blu ray wouldnt be super popular (IMO its ahead of its time and overpriced) and the RROD issues could not have been predicted by anyone but MS (who knew about it before launch).

nippon_gamer

I think you guys give the 360 less credit than its due. I think a blind man can see the xbl> psn too a certain extent.

i don't think it's $50 better. If it was free then i could say that it is far superior. Also no dedicated servers is not very cool on xbl, psn atleast has some games w/ dedicated servers.

Have you experienced both XBL and PSN to have a valid opinion on the both?

XBL is able to offer all it's extras compared to PSN because it costs money. If it were free, it wouldn't be what it is. The subscriptions to Live are what help make it better.

If you noticed, Sony just doesn't put out anything right away. They look at the future, like they did with CD and DVD. They're innovators, and they also know that it doesn't matter how it begins but how it ends. And that's why it will outsell 360 this gen.

If Sony launched the ps3 without Blu Ray and the Cell for $299-350..mephisto_11

Then the ps3 wouldn't have been able to play games... Gaming console without disk drive and CPU = FAIL!

With no Blu-Ray and No Cell, everything thats difficult about making multiplatform games goes away. You lose the advantage of Blu-Ray storage. The 360 actually did pretty well its launch year. I think the PS3 would have more sales, but it'd have even less exclusives, it'd have fewer multimedia functions than the 360. Without Blu-Ray in the PS3, we might still be in a Blu-ray vs HD-DVD battle. The HD-DVD attachment for 360 looks like a great deal as HD-DVD is still alive and kicking.

PS3 needs Blu-Ray. Thats its seperating factor. The 360 and PS3 already have a damn near identical game library and most of the great games are multiplat or matched exclusive (ie Halo and Resistance both being fps, Forza and GT both being racing sims).

Wii might have launched at an even lower priced if Sony was cheaper out of the gate. With no Blu-Ray though I think the Wii sells even more than it does.