Poll: Is it still too early to declare PS3 a failure

[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

And remember, while ps3 has stumbled out of the gate, it has sold 14.1 million worldwide, compared to 360's 20 million worldwide. This is with 360 being cheaper, and having a bigger game library, and 14 month headstart. Sony can still do somethings right!

Also, 360 is slicing its prices, and has been outselling the ps3 in japan for the past 2 months only. This is the first time that the 360 has been sellign any units in Japan.

So while this is a deep threat to Sony, since not only is wii killing them in japan, but now 360, it may be a temporary thing due to the price cuts and anticipated jrpgs. Sony needs to up its jrpgs, it has a few up its sleeves, in order to oust 360. This is an interesting development! Again, we have to see in the long run how it pans out.

I

ExtremeOne316

You need to get the rigjht numbers Microsoft announced today in its Financial report that it has sold 22.5 Million Xbox 360 's world wide . Oh and whats wrong with cutting price last year Sony cut the PS3 price. Microsoft is a very serious threat to sony and has already taken much of sony's marketshare

Ok, sorry wasn't up to date with the sales figures. So what is ps3' new numbers? And Sony only really did a one time cut. Where as 360 conitually makes cuts. Nothing worng, just saying this adds to 360 selling more. And 360 has taken away market share, but agian elary on. Never know. I see this as a close race, with no clear winners, besides Nintendo.

It is too early to tell. Sony is still losing money on the thing, 2 years after it came out. On top of that, it really isn't gaining on the 360 like some in here said it would as far as HW sales go (MS still has a solid 6 to 7 million unit lead). Of course it will never catch the Wii and the fact it is now losing in Japan to the 360 on week to week sales is just sad.

I think the PS3 will eventually catch on and sell great, but compared to what its 2 bigger brothers did, it will be considered a failure because I don't see the PS3 selling over 100 million units. Hell I think it will struggle to sell 50 million for its life span, but that is still good. The big question is, will it ever make Sony a profit?

RonnieLottinSF

Agree here. Too early to tell. Quite surprising that the ps3 is struggling given its history. 360 has played this gen very well. With the acquisition of many games from the ps3 library, as well as some other exclusives. Very well indeed. They also just seem to milk money out of the 360, more than ps3 has been able to do. By charging for xbl, as well as other dlc offerings. MS is a very smart company in this aspect.

If I would have to declare a winner now, it seems like 360 is en routed to being in 2nd place. But we are still ealry for this yeas generation. Never know what can happen. Hell, MS might overtake nintendo. Never know, ps3 could pull on top. Just game on and let's see what happens!

Well, I only care about games and MGS4 and LBP do not guarantee a purchase.

Besides the Cell and BR were a failure from the beginning.

So no.

Well, I only care about games and MGS4 and LBP do not guarantee a purchase.

Besides the Cell and BR were a failure from the beginning.

So no.

thegfl

LBP doesn't do it for me either to be hones. Don't know why all the hype!

God LOL's at the PS3.princeofshapeir

:lol: aahahaha

The PS2 was the LAST GEN winner because of its HUGE library of games. The P$3 fails because it LACKS of what the PS2 had in ample supply.

But things will get much worse if M$ SOLVES for good the RRoD Curse.
The clock is ticking for $ony, or better said for the P$3.
A console with a few games wont last long, don't even think of a 10 year life cycle. 8)dr_jashugan

after 2 years its still 400$+, so yes i think its safe to say that its a pretty big financial failure. im hoping that the future actually has me owning more then 2 PS3 games. Resistance 2, and GOW3 are about the only intersting titles that i want atm. maybe KZ2, but im waiting for that game to come out so i can see if its all sony hype.Fizzman

[QUOTE="dr_jashugan"]The PS2 was the LAST GEN winner because of its HUGE library of games. The P$3 fails because it LACKS of what the PS2 had in ample supply.

But things will get much worse if M$ SOLVES for good the RRoD Curse.
The clock is ticking for $ony, or better said for the P$3.
A console with a few games wont last long, don't even think of a 10 year life cycle. 8)Dreams-Visions

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

I agree that Sony lost a huge amount of market share due to delaysI'm not so sure about that...if the PS3 had been the huge step up from the 360 like they claimed, the damage would have been minimal. Since the PS3 came out behind graphically and everything rather than ahead like they were supposed to be the bleeding probably could have and would have stopped. (HUGE). These delays, however where necessary because they were fixing issues thay had with their optical drives. A drive that wasn't nessesary to the success of the platform, when your system is equal in power you darn sure better launch at the same time. MS did not launch the 360 early because they wanted to capture more market share, they did so because they had to. The chips that were used to produce the original Xbox ran out, forcing Microsoft's hand to release the 360 without it being ready. I think it was "ready", or at least on track to be ready. The .065 micron process chips that are just coming out now were probably close to two years behind schedule. If those chips had come when they intially thought they would RROD would have been confined to mostly launch systems. MS just lucked out that Sony had to delay their launch. True, MS was shooting for a simultaneous launch, and the delays gave them a year headstart they weren't expecting. Sony was playing catch up ever since, which led to many mistakes on their part, but did not want to rush their product without a lower failure rate.

DVD's, while in production during the 3 years prior to the PS2 being relaesed, did not intially take off and make a run for it, not true, DVD was already well on its way to usurping VHS and there was no other tech vying for the optical market. and while there were inexpensive dvd players, it was still in the same price range, if not slightly more expensive than the ps2(For a very short time, by this same time in the PS2's lifespan DVD players were sub 100 bucks.. DVD was the clearly the future at that time, it isn't hard to beleive that Blueray will be the same for now. Bluray had not one, but two competitors vying for the HD market. DVD players had image quality and usability enhancements that EVERYBODY could take advantage of. Bluray ONLY is a bonus for those who have HDTV's(roughly 1/4 of the home market) with none of the usabilty benefits over DVD. Also, the proliferation of not only broadband, but now cable TV services are in 80% of homes means digital distribution already has an estalished infrastructure that reaches most homes TODAY. Digital distribution is going to continually eat away at blurays potential market. It very well may be on its way to being the optical market leader like DVD is today, but by anybody's estimation that market could end up being MUCH smaller than it is today. It may take longer before bluerays overtake dvd's, especially since all blueray dvd players have the capabilities to play dvd's, making dvds still relevant. But the fact that many companies are concerned with piracy, and the push for drm, bluerays stand a good chance of being a major force in the near future with their self-protecting digital concept, which protects bluerays from being tampered. Also with the shift of all tv's having to be digital, which will force many homes to buy a new television(or buy a converter box, which is likely for those who don't already have cable, because either they don't watch much TV(leading to a converter being a much cheaper option), or can't afford cable(leading to a convertor being a much cheaper option), and quite possibly hd tv's, which are becoming increasingly cheaper-----not a far stretch to see that bluerays will be more prominant. But again, these are alot of what-ifs, and Sony is really gambling.

So to say that sony was a failuire because they gambled on their business model---not necessarily true. Many circumstances have made Sony stumble, and have forced them to play catch up, mostly due to the fact that they lost a year on the 360. 360 had to launch earlier than they wanted to because of their dilemma. Sony did play catch up, and stalled their own launch, which did hurt them in the long run.

Sony did screw up in trying to capture a wider audience. they did try to capture the casual gaming and non traditional gaming audience, it introduced the six axis controls a la Wii, once it saw what Wii was doing, as well as trying to sell the console not neccessarily as just a gaming unit but also a multimedia hub that a causal game can use to play as well as other recreational uses, and part arrogance/cheap (they didn't want to pay the company that supplied them with rumble.) they wanted it to be the main focal point to go along with tv's. No need to have mutliple appliances tied to your tvs.....just a tv and a ps3. it failed becuase while trying to do this, it did not maintain its core audience, probably because of arrogance of thinking that ps2 players will automatically just buy the ps3, no matter the price. Remember the ps2 came out at a higher price of any console at that time....$300. (Not only this, but they were the last system released at the highest price. The PS2 got a year to sell consoles and become the de facto standard before a cheaper alternative laucnhed.)The gamecube was cheaper, but didn't win. And when it was sold, Xbox hadn't even come out yet. 2001, Xbox comes out, 1 year after, but PS2 already had that install base. Xbox was price moderatley, but still did not catch up to the ps2. PS2 had too much support from software developers, who were all rushing to develop for P2, since it had the most units sold. The expensive price is because of the wifi, and th bluetooth, as well as the bluray technology it employs. It could have cut down on some of these features, or made them optional.

I guess I am tyring to say that PS3 was a flop, since it has not been able to replicate the success of the ps2, but not necessarily because of Microsoft's "saavy" business techniques. Here's some of the hypocrisy. I would say that it intially wasn't because of MS's saavy, but it is MS savvy and strategy that will make it hard to comeback. All of MS's decisions back then now allow them to hold a significant price advantage for the rest of this generation and be profitable doing so. MS has basically made it so that sony has to choose between marketshare or profit...and maybe not even profit but just varying degrees of how much they'll lose. And PS1 and PS2 were market gods because of their positioning. Sega screwed up big time in their competiton with Sony, and by that time Nintendo was still clinging to it's glory days, thinking its name would still move units. Since Xbox became very popular with its online gaming, (this is where sony truly failed) ealry on with the original xbox, this really proved to be one of the highest sellign points for the 360, as well as it's 14 month headstart.(12 months) PS2 didn't dabble in online gmaing until 2002(XBL didn't launch until 2002 either...I think they launched it on their one year anniversary)-----and even then it wasn't comparable at all. We have yet to see if Sony's gamble will pay off in the end. It is obvious that the selling price is not a huge turnoff, since it is sellin units and isn;t too farbehind form MS, despite the delays and MS's price cuts.(That's all because of the RROD. When the PS3 launched most people would have laughed if you suggested the PS3 would struggle to catch a reliable 360, much less a 360 plagued with the RROD. Sony should thank its luck stars for the RROD, otherwise we wouldn't be asking IF the PS3 is a failure, we'd be calling it one of the most colossal failures of all time. We just have top wait. But to say that Sony was a failure, we havbe to wait to see how it plays out, a huge flop and disappointing launch---YES.

And I wouldn't be surprised if 360's hardware failure now ill affect the next MS console's sales. Maybe people will delay buying it to see if there are any issues. If there is one thing we should have learned by now it is that people go for the games regardless of the hardware. The problems of the PS1 didn't slow down the PS2, and the DRE isn't why the PS3 sales went awry. If the RROD is indeed fixed by Jasper, in 3 years the RROD will seem much less significant(like how people now massively downplay the DRE issues), if things progress as they have, all people will remember is that the 360 had the best games, and that the new xbox probably will to. Maybe, but this is videogamers, and as is apparent now, they obviuosly don't care about quality hardware.Nope, they always have and always will go where the games are.

And MS fanboys need a relaity check as well! I am not saying that PS3 was a success, but only a 360 fanboy can be content and continue to endorse a failed product. more hypocrisy. People continually endorsed the PS2, and Sony didn't handle it anywhere NEAR as well. If this product were anything else, say a vcr, car, what have you, it would not have been continued to be purchased because of its known faulty hardware. Because there are multiple machines that can do all those functions. The only way to play 360 games is to buy a 360. But fanboys continue to buy the systems because of the games, yep and especially because they are fanboys. Not really. I had both the ps2 and original xbox. I want the 360, but refuse to endorse a company that knowingly shoved a failed hardware onto its customers, and to say otherwise is blind fanboyism(So you're going to go with Nintendo then? Since they are the only ones who haven't shoved "a failed hardware" on their customers.. i agree that Sony has stumbled, but MS has succeeded because of the blind fanboyisms out there.MS succeeded because they out sony'd sony. To succeed because of fanboyism suggests their is no other reason to own one...they have the best library, and a much cheaper pricetag.

PS3Gamer_1

The drive is was part of the original design. They are going to switch over last minute because the other system flinched? they tried to push up th date, but met with unforseen delays. Bluray was also supposed to be on the market by early 2005 when those original plans were devised. Being unwilling to change when met with FORSEEN delays is not the good business you give Sony credit for.

And the 360 was ready for the most part, but last minute they added some features that caused vents to be blocked, hence the high incidence of ROOD alonf with other problems with overheating. They rushed it to market instead of doing a thorough QC of the final product. A die shrink to .065 micron was due early to mid 2006. If the 360 is fine once that happens those changes wouldn't have mattered anyway. The 360 GPU wasn't meant to be a .090 micron processor.

Actually XBL was launched on 2001, and it had the infrastructure of online gaming since beginning of the xbox design, where as for ps2 it was an after thought. seeign as you had to purchase an extension to log on. No, XBL was launched on November 15, 2002...on the one year anniversary of the xbox launch. Sony was demoing their AOL connectivity their HDD and the like at the same e3 where MS announced the xbox. It's one of the earlier example of Sony promising stuff they don't deliver, one of the laundry list of reasons why when people bring up the future of the PS3 and use what sony says to support things "turning around" it is met with skepticism.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-949489.html

PS1 had hardware problems with the launch units with over heating, but wasnt's as wide spread as RROD or the PS2 issues. So really no big history there. Maybe more so with ps2, and they weren't going to repeat the same thing with the ps3. Have you ever had to run your PS1 upside down to read discs? A HUGE segment of users had to do that(if it worked at all). The DRE was pretty bad and sony told you to F off when it occured. Whether the PS3 does the same or not isn't the point. It's that unreliable hardware has never hindered anybody before, there is no reason to expect it to do so now.

The only reason that 360 addressed the issue was because of the publicity and how widespread the RROD was. They knew if sued they would lose like PS2 did, so it's a premptive stike.So what? The point was that they addressed it before it got to that point. They could have tried to stall it in court proceedings for years and wait till the generation was mostly over to "save face", but they didn't.

And not goign with nintendo yet.I enjoy the games offered on the ps3 pretty much same games as 360, except for som exclusives which I would like to play, but am not dying to buy. The same reason I have no PS3 yet...except they don't really have anything yet I would like to play, but they do in the future(GOW3).

MS succeeded because they through their wieght around. Very good game plan luring games awy from ps3. They were very smart.Here's the hypocrisy....in your post you attributed all of MS's success to Sony screwing up, and would flipflop when the 'players' were reversed. Here you finally admit that some of it was due to MS and their tactics.

And no hypocrisy in my posts. So a reliable system is justification for promoting a system, but a better library and a cheaper price can't? There are reasons to promote the 360 despite the hardware problems which are fixed for free, you DON'T have to be a fanboy to do it. Just because I couldn't be as clever as you and come up with a better username doenst make me a fanboy. No, the content of your post seems to point towards that. The USERNAME just puts your objectivity in question. I can sense in your post your veiled fanboyism. I favor the 360, and admit it. But I use nothing but truth to support my viewpoints. Nothing I said about hte PS3 is untrue, much of what you said about the 360 is. I can admit that ps3 is not that giant that ps2 was. DO i care? NO, just as long as the ps3 doesn't go the route of dreamcast. Then why did you make the post in the first place if you didn't care? People have to realize that most 3rd party games will be multiplat, and the differentiated games will be the 1p and 2p games. Unless somebody ponies up cash to a 3rd party, which MS appears willing to do. This just makes gaming more exciting, since you will have more comepetion and better gaems out there. I'll agree with that. Why can't you just admit that people are blind with the fact that xbox 360 is a shoddy hardwarethey AREN'T blind, if you want the best games library you get the 360 in SPITE of the problems(which are fixed for free and by the WORST estimation didn't happen to 66% of people), and you just don't care about it since ms's bandaid gives a temporary fix for it? Shoddy hardware has never really held a system back, yet you think this time it will. It has nothing to do with what I think. History has shown that good software can overcome reliable hardware and this was the only point I was making. Is that so hard to understand?

As for my objectivity, do u see me saying ps3 will win...who cares. Once again, then why the post? Just saying I can't predict the future. Then why think the PS3 could or should pass the 360 when that would go against all PAST trends in the market. Past evidence supports the PS3 staying right where it is, the ONLY thing supporting the PS3 shooting past the 360 IS a crystal ball. Did you ever expect the wii to outsell these consoles? Nope, never claimed to, though I did think it was going to beat the PS3 in Japan. Never in my wildest dreams, but if your crystal ball told you, congrats!

[QUOTE="ExtremeOne316"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

And remember, while ps3 has stumbled out of the gate, it has sold 14.1 million worldwide, compared to 360's 20 million worldwide. This is with 360 being cheaper, and having a bigger game library, and 14 month headstart. Sony can still do somethings right!

Also, 360 is slicing its prices, and has been outselling the ps3 in japan for the past 2 months only. This is the first time that the 360 has been sellign any units in Japan.

So while this is a deep threat to Sony, since not only is wii killing them in japan, but now 360, it may be a temporary thing due to the price cuts and anticipated jrpgs. Sony needs to up its jrpgs, it has a few up its sleeves, in order to oust 360. This is an interesting development! Again, we have to see in the long run how it pans out.

I

PS3Gamer_1

You need to get the rigjht numbers Microsoft announced today in its Financial report that it has sold 22.5 Million Xbox 360 's world wide . Oh and whats wrong with cutting price last year Sony cut the PS3 price. Microsoft is a very serious threat to sony and has already taken much of sony's marketshare

Ok, sorry wasn't up to date with the sales figures. So what is ps3' new numbers? And Sony only really did a one time cut. Where as 360 conitually makes cuts. Nothing worng, just saying this adds to 360 selling more. And 360 has taken away market share, but agian elary on. Never know. I see this as a close race, with no clear winners, besides Nintendo.

truly, i hope no system, be it 360, PS3, Wii, DS, or PSP is a failure. competition is a great thing in a lot of cases, and the gamers win. sorry, don't want to sound like a hippie.clone01

very true. this is the basis of the free market. why do you think that m$ even dropped the price, or pays for former-exclusives to go multiplat? why does sony keep improving psn, and keep attempting to come out with some good 1st party games?(not saying they failed, just they they are continually trying)

because of competition. the customer does indeed win.

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="dr_jashugan"]The PS2 was the LAST GEN winner because of its HUGE library of games. The P$3 fails because it LACKS of what the PS2 had in ample supply.

But things will get much worse if M$ SOLVES for good the RRoD Curse.
The clock is ticking for $ony, or better said for the P$3.
A console with a few games wont last long, don't even think of a 10 year life cycle. 8)dr_jashugan

so in short, the lack of software is a function of something else...making it fruit. a branch on the tree, if you will. but not the root, per se.

[QUOTE="dr_jashugan"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="dr_jashugan"]The PS2 was the LAST GEN winner because of its HUGE library of games. The P$3 fails because it LACKS of what the PS2 had in ample supply.

But things will get much worse if M$ SOLVES for good the RRoD Curse.
The clock is ticking for $ony, or better said for the P$3.
A console with a few games wont last long, don't even think of a 10 year life cycle. 8)Dreams-Visions

so in short, the lack of software is a function of something else...making it fruit. a branch on the tree, if you will. but not the root, per se.

hmmm I think the only time you can call a system a 'failure' is with the arrival of the next generation.

obviously the playstation 3 is lacking in comparison to the xbox 360 at the moment, however if the situation improved and it got a lot of good games i might consider it worthy

i agree that up until now it has failed as a games system

it is a failure in the eyes of sony. To me it isnt though i play mine more then any other system.

The price is what made it DOA.

[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

Steppy_76

The drive is was part of the original design. They are going to switch over last minute because the other system flinched? they tried to push up th date, but met with unforseen delays. Bluray was also supposed to be on the market by early 2005 when those original plans were devised. Being unwilling to change when met with FORSEEN delays is not the good business you give Sony credit for.

And the 360 was ready for the most part, but last minute they added some features that caused vents to be blocked, hence the high incidence of ROOD alonf with other problems with overheating. They rushed it to market instead of doing a thorough QC of the final product. A die shrink to .065 micron was due early to mid 2006. If the 360 is fine once that happens those changes wouldn't have mattered anyway. The 360 GPU wasn't meant to be a .090 micron processor.

Actually XBL was launched on 2001, and it had the infrastructure of online gaming since beginning of the xbox design, where as for ps2 it was an after thought. seeign as you had to purchase an extension to log on. No, XBL was launched on November 15, 2002...on the one year anniversary of the xbox launch. Sony was demoing their AOL connectivity their HDD and the like at the same e3 where MS announced the xbox. It's one of the earlier example of Sony promising stuff they don't deliver, one of the laundry list of reasons why when people bring up the future of the PS3 and use what sony says to support things "turning around" it is met with skepticism.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-949489.html

PS1 had hardware problems with the launch units with over heating, but wasnt's as wide spread as RROD or the PS2 issues. So really no big history there. Maybe more so with ps2, and they weren't going to repeat the same thing with the ps3. Have you ever had to run your PS1 upside down to read discs? A HUGE segment of users had to do that(if it worked at all). The DRE was pretty bad and sony told you to F off when it occured. Whether the PS3 does the same or not isn't the point. It's that unreliable hardware has never hindered anybody before, there is no reason to expect it to do so now.

The only reason that 360 addressed the issue was because of the publicity and how widespread the RROD was. They knew if sued they would lose like PS2 did, so it's a premptive stike.So what? The point was that they addressed it before it got to that point. They could have tried to stall it in court proceedings for years and wait till the generation was mostly over to "save face", but they didn't.

And not goign with nintendo yet.I enjoy the games offered on the ps3 pretty much same games as 360, except for som exclusives which I would like to play, but am not dying to buy. The same reason I have no PS3 yet...except they don't really have anything yet I would like to play, but they do in the future(GOW3).

MS succeeded because they through their wieght around. Very good game plan luring games awy from ps3. They were very smart.Here's the hypocrisy....in your post you attributed all of MS's success to Sony screwing up, and would flipflop when the 'players' were reversed. Here you finally admit that some of it was due to MS and their tactics.

And no hypocrisy in my posts. So a reliable system is justification for promoting a system, but a better library and a cheaper price can't? There are reasons to promote the 360 despite the hardware problems which are fixed for free, you DON'T have to be a fanboy to do it. Just because I couldn't be as clever as you and come up with a better username doenst make me a fanboy. No, the content of your post seems to point towards that. The USERNAME just puts your objectivity in question. I can sense in your post your veiled fanboyism. I favor the 360, and admit it. But I use nothing but truth to support my viewpoints. Nothing I said about hte PS3 is untrue, much of what you said about the 360 is. I can admit that ps3 is not that giant that ps2 was. DO i care? NO, just as long as the ps3 doesn't go the route of dreamcast. Then why did you make the post in the first place if you didn't care? People have to realize that most 3rd party games will be multiplat, and the differentiated games will be the 1p and 2p games. Unless somebody ponies up cash to a 3rd party, which MS appears willing to do. This just makes gaming more exciting, since you will have more comepetion and better gaems out there. I'll agree with that. Why can't you just admit that people are blind with the fact that xbox 360 is a shoddy hardwarethey AREN'T blind, if you want the best games library you get the 360 in SPITE of the problems(which are fixed for free and by the WORST estimation didn't happen to 66% of people), and you just don't care about it since ms's bandaid gives a temporary fix for it? Shoddy hardware has never really held a system back, yet you think this time it will. It has nothing to do with what I think. History has shown that good software can overcome reliable hardware and this was the only point I was making. Is that so hard to understand?

As for my objectivity, do u see me saying ps3 will win...who cares. Once again, then why the post? Just saying I can't predict the future. Then why think the PS3 could or should pass the 360 when that would go against all PAST trends in the market. Past evidence supports the PS3 staying right where it is, the ONLY thing supporting the PS3 shooting past the 360 IS a crystal ball. Did you ever expect the wii to outsell these consoles? Nope, never claimed to, though I did think it was going to beat the PS3 in Japan. Never in my wildest dreams, but if your crystal ball told you, congrats!

t's fun to post. I don't care if ps3, 360, or wii is on top. As long as ps3 doesn't go the route of sega I am fine. I posted because everyone has bold claim that ps3 may never catch up to the 360....gen is far from over. This may never happen, but no one can be 100% sure without looking at their crystal balls! While you're looking at yours, can you tell me how will the ps3 and 720 fare?

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/207041/report-xbox-360-defects-caused-by-pre-launch-rush/

Gamespot also has quoted the same journalist who has done an investiagtive report on the original xbox as well as the 360. MS knowingly put out a shoddy product that will go down on hostory as a hige sanfu. Just saying. There were more things added to 360 last minute besides the chip. Things such as wireless controllers, this was a last minute addition.

And is it possible that ps3 won't surpass? What past trends in the market? Show me the trends. PS1, Sega Saturn/Dreamcast, N64? I mean tell me when in the gaming industry there was a situation where 3 systems with viable means to gain market share was really present. Sega genesis/Super nintendo/3do days? Nintendo held most of the market share, the only real threat was Sega, and 3do was an afterthought at best. PS1/Saturn/N64 days? There wasn't really any generation where this situation was really present. Last generation? Nope, only ps2 and nintendo sort of coexisted, since sega was out of the picture, and ms joined the party as a new entrant.

This is truly the only generation where this is happening, so don't try to say past trends, because if this was following past trends, then sony ps3 would be on top ala genesis super nintendo days. When Sega genesis jump started the 16 bit generation, and nintendo launched the super after sales of its 8 bit were staggering to the gensis. While sales of genesis were good, once snes came out, it recaptured its market share, and came out on top over the genesis. Remember, nintendo had like a 50 marekt share, if not more during the 8 bit consoles. Sega Master system did nothing to chip at it. Once the snes came through, it recpatured it's "lost" markey share and surpassed the sega in the 16 bit wars. 3do did nothing to dent any sales for sega or nintendo. You cannot use the so called past trends as proof, because this gen has been anything but like th pas, and if anything has gone against the trend. And you cannot state with certainty that the ps3 will remain in last, just like i can't statre it will beat the 360. It would be blind on both of our parts. And when people like EA makes statements or bold predictions that the PS3 will best 360 in sales for 2008 (and i think they said beyond)....just saying who are we to state with certainty that the 360 will prevail (or for this matter the ps3 will do better) but I would listen to insiders and to people who are actually in the gaming industry and know more about it than anyone in this board. http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/04/ea-bets-ps3-will-best-xbox-360-sales-in-2008/

So don't make your bold claims of looking at past trends (since in no generation was this sitaution ever present, and if anything it goes against past trends). No one knows which system will come out on top, only thing we can see is that the wii will be hard to catch up to if their sales continue to grow as they have.

[QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="PS3Gamer_1"]

Steppy_76

The drive is was part of the original design. They are going to switch over last minute because the other system flinched? they tried to push up th date, but met with unforseen delays. Bluray was also supposed to be on the market by early 2005 when those original plans were devised. Being unwilling to change when met with FORSEEN delays is not the good business you give Sony credit for.

And the 360 was ready for the most part, but last minute they added some features that caused vents to be blocked, hence the high incidence of ROOD alonf with other problems with overheating. They rushed it to market instead of doing a thorough QC of the final product. A die shrink to .065 micron was due early to mid 2006. If the 360 is fine once that happens those changes wouldn't have mattered anyway. The 360 GPU wasn't meant to be a .090 micron processor.

Actually XBL was launched on 2001, and it had the infrastructure of online gaming since beginning of the xbox design, where as for ps2 it was an after thought. seeign as you had to purchase an extension to log on. No, XBL was launched on November 15, 2002...on the one year anniversary of the xbox launch. Sony was demoing their AOL connectivity their HDD and the like at the same e3 where MS announced the xbox. It's one of the earlier example of Sony promising stuff they don't deliver, one of the laundry list of reasons why when people bring up the future of the PS3 and use what sony says to support things "turning around" it is met with skepticism.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-949489.html

PS1 had hardware problems with the launch units with over heating, but wasnt's as wide spread as RROD or the PS2 issues. So really no big history there. Maybe more so with ps2, and they weren't going to repeat the same thing with the ps3. Have you ever had to run your PS1 upside down to read discs? A HUGE segment of users had to do that(if it worked at all). The DRE was pretty bad and sony told you to F off when it occured. Whether the PS3 does the same or not isn't the point. It's that unreliable hardware has never hindered anybody before, there is no reason to expect it to do so now.

The only reason that 360 addressed the issue was because of the publicity and how widespread the RROD was. They knew if sued they would lose like PS2 did, so it's a premptive stike.So what? The point was that they addressed it before it got to that point. They could have tried to stall it in court proceedings for years and wait till the generation was mostly over to "save face", but they didn't.

And not goign with nintendo yet.I enjoy the games offered on the ps3 pretty much same games as 360, except for som exclusives which I would like to play, but am not dying to buy. The same reason I have no PS3 yet...except they don't really have anything yet I would like to play, but they do in the future(GOW3).

MS succeeded because they through their wieght around. Very good game plan luring games awy from ps3. They were very smart.Here's the hypocrisy....in your post you attributed all of MS's success to Sony screwing up, and would flipflop when the 'players' were reversed. Here you finally admit that some of it was due to MS and their tactics.

And no hypocrisy in my posts. So a reliable system is justification for promoting a system, but a better library and a cheaper price can't? There are reasons to promote the 360 despite the hardware problems which are fixed for free, you DON'T have to be a fanboy to do it. Just because I couldn't be as clever as you and come up with a better username doenst make me a fanboy. No, the content of your post seems to point towards that. The USERNAME just puts your objectivity in question. I can sense in your post your veiled fanboyism. I favor the 360, and admit it. But I use nothing but truth to support my viewpoints. Nothing I said about hte PS3 is untrue, much of what you said about the 360 is. I can admit that ps3 is not that giant that ps2 was. DO i care? NO, just as long as the ps3 doesn't go the route of dreamcast. Then why did you make the post in the first place if you didn't care? People have to realize that most 3rd party games will be multiplat, and the differentiated games will be the 1p and 2p games. Unless somebody ponies up cash to a 3rd party, which MS appears willing to do. This just makes gaming more exciting, since you will have more comepetion and better gaems out there. I'll agree with that. Why can't you just admit that people are blind with the fact that xbox 360 is a shoddy hardwarethey AREN'T blind, if you want the best games library you get the 360 in SPITE of the problems(which are fixed for free and by the WORST estimation didn't happen to 66% of people), and you just don't care about it since ms's bandaid gives a temporary fix for it? Shoddy hardware has never really held a system back, yet you think this time it will. It has nothing to do with what I think. History has shown that good software can overcome reliable hardware and this was the only point I was making. Is that so hard to understand?

As for my objectivity, do u see me saying ps3 will win...who cares. Once again, then why the post? Just saying I can't predict the future. Then why think the PS3 could or should pass the 360 when that would go against all PAST trends in the market. Past evidence supports the PS3 staying right where it is, the ONLY thing supporting the PS3 shooting past the 360 IS a crystal ball. Did you ever expect the wii to outsell these consoles? Nope, never claimed to, though I did think it was going to beat the PS3 in Japan. Never in my wildest dreams, but if your crystal ball told you, congrats!

t's fun to post. I don't care if ps3, 360, or wii is on top. As long as ps3 doesn't go the route of sega I am fine. I posted because everyone has bold claim that ps3 may never catch up to the 360....gen is far from over. This may never happen, but no one can be 100% sure without looking at their crystal balls! While you're looking at yours, can you tell me how will the ps3 and 720 fare?

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/207041/report-xbox-360-defects-caused-by-pre-launch-rush/

Gamespot also has quoted the same journalist who has done an investiagtive report on the original xbox as well as the 360. MS knowingly put out a shoddy product that will go down on hostory as a hige sanfu. Just saying. There were more things added to 360 last minute besides the chip. Things such as wireless controllers, this was a last minute addition.

And is it possible that ps3 won't surpass? What past trends in the market? Show me the trends. PS1, Sega Saturn/Dreamcast, N64? I mean tell me when in the gaming industry there was a situation where 3 systems with viable means to gain market share was really present. Sega genesis/Super nintendo/3do days? Nintendo held most of the market share, the only real threat was Sega, and 3do was an afterthought at best. PS1/Saturn/N64 days? There wasn't really any generation where this situation was really present. Last generation? Nope, only ps2 and nintendo sort of coexisted, since sega was out of the picture, and ms joined the party as a new entrant.

This is truly the only generation where this is happening, so don't try to say past trends, because if this was following past trends, then sony ps3 would be on top ala genesis super nintendo days. When Sega genesis jump started the 16 bit generation, and nintendo launched the super after sales of its 8 bit were staggering to the gensis. While sales of genesis were good, once snes came out, it recaptured its market share, and came out on top over the genesis. Remember, nintendo had like a 50 marekt share, if not more during the 8 bit consoles. Sega Master system did nothing to chip at it. Once the snes came through, it recpatured it's "lost" markey share and surpassed the sega in the 16 bit wars. 3do did nothing to dent any sales for sega or nintendo. You cannot use the so called past trends as proof, because this gen has been anything but like th pas, and if anything has gone against the trend. And you cannot state with certainty that the ps3 will remain in last, just like i can't statre it will beat the 360. It would be blind on both of our parts. And when people like EA makes statements or bold predictions that the PS3 will best 360 in sales for 2008 (and i think they said beyond)....just saying who are we to state with certainty that the 360 will prevail (or for this matter the ps3 will do better) but I would listen to insiders and to people who are actually in the gaming industry and know more about it than anyone in this board. http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/04/ea-bets-ps3-will-best-xbox-360-sales-in-2008/

So don't make your bold claims of looking at past trends (since in no generation was this sitaution ever present, and if anything it goes against past trends). No one knows which system will come out on top, only thing we can see is that the wii will be hard to catch up to if their sales continue to grow as they have.

Surely option 5 kind of makes option 3 a bit pointless, it's kind of inferred - if it comes 2nd in this generation, its never gonna be a failure. Didn't know which option to pick then realised option 5 implies option 3 anyway.