releasing one year after 360 doesnt give ps3 a reason to be behind in sales

It was sony's choice to release a year behind 360. In that time they could have looked how great 360's dashboard is and improved upon it. Instead they went the cheap route and made things free. Being free means they would always be a step behind. Most people see that and bought 360's instead. They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games. Releasing one year afterisnt a reason for sony to be behind 360. It was sony's fault for not learning why people pay for xbox live.

you know what else released a year later than the competition, priced higher, was super-hyped for superior graphics capabilities, was bought for movie playback and had major exclusives delayed until a year or more after release?

the PS2

They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games

slipknot0129

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]

They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games

soulitane

The 360s first year was kind of bad. I'm pretty sure Gears was purposefully delayed to somewhat coincide with the ps3 launch, but initial games for the 360 were being compared to the original xbox. Some games like Splinter Cell were not even a step up. Perfect Dark was a big stinker, as well. The machine was surely rushed to the market.

The $600 price tag of the ps3 is what really held it back. I know I wasn't about to spend 600 for one. Heck I probably wouldn't have ever bought a ps3 if my xbox hadnt Red Ringed. At least Sony released a reliable product. In the half year that I've owned a ps3, between dvd/blu rays/games, the machine has probably been put through more use than the 360 that I've had for 4 years. That's not saying I didn't use the 360, its just saying that the ps3 has been in constant use since I got it.

The 360 doesn't have an excuse for its 7 million unit year's head start having shrunk down to 5 million even though its closest competitor was $200 more expensive at launch.

Lets be honest though, that first Year Microsoft had pretty much went to waste. It didn't release it's first killer app, Gears of War, until like a week before the PS3 came out. With an extra year in the cooker we might not be facing the hardware problems that still plague the 360 to this day. If anything I'd say it's completely possible that head start have don't just as much harm as good. vashkey

I agree with this 100%

Also... Sony fanboys can't blame sales on a year headstart by MS, when the Wii released at the same time as the PS3 but is killing the 360 in sales.

It isn't the reason, but it certainly does contribute.

People,maybe ones look at charts conted as sales since consoles lanch, you will notice that PS3 and 360 sales in same speed, why do you think gap been always mainained between 10-5 mil? and whats it's more funny that even on higher price and 360 as cheap alternative they still sold in same speed. Head start practicly saved 360, but we can'r predict what would happen if PS3 would beenfirst

But yeah, PS3 mostly suffered (compire to PS2) from price and it's little sad when people wonder why PS3 loseing hardware features (and some what them back).... guess what, because they makeing it cheaper

Lets be honest though, that first Year Microsoft had pretty much went to waste. It didn't release it's first killer app, Gears of War, until like a week before the PS3 came out. With an extra year in the cooker we might not be facing the hardware problems that still plague the 360 to this day. If anything I'd say it's completely possible that head start have don't just as much harm as good. vashkey

If you think about how many 360s sold were RRoD replacements it's not really ahead

It was sony's choice to release a year behind 360. In that time they could have looked how great 360's dashboard is and improved upon it. Instead they went the cheap route and made things free. Being free means they would always be a step behind. Most people see that and bought 360's instead. They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games. Releasing one year afterisnt a reason for sony to be behind 360. It was sony's fault for not learning why people pay for xbox live.

slipknot0129

Slipknot0151 is probably one of GS' ultimate 360 supporters.

Slipknot0151 is probably one of GS' ultimate 360 supporters.

erglesmergle

[QUOTE="slipknot0129"]

It was sony's choice to release a year behind 360. In that time they could have looked how great 360's dashboard is and improved upon it. Instead they went the cheap route and made things free. Being free means they would always be a step behind. Most people see that and bought 360's instead. They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games. Releasing one year afterisnt a reason for sony to be behind 360. It was sony's fault for not learning why people pay for xbox live.

AzatiS

Well it may look bad comparing it to the PS2 and PS1 but,the PS3 is catching up with the360 in a 5 million gap...even though the 360 had a 7 million headstart. I think Sony should be rewarded or something.

Oh yeah work on your grammar :D

It actually is a reason to be behind. The real thing is that I don't have to accept it as valid because Sony chose their launch independant of everyone else.

It was sony's choice to release a year behind 360. In that time they could have looked how great 360's dashboard is and improved upon it. Instead they went the cheap route and made things free. Being free means they would always be a step behind. Most people see that and bought 360's instead. They didnt get achievements for a long time so games felt incomplete compared to 360 games. Releasing one year afterisnt a reason for sony to be behind 360. It was sony's fault for not learning why people pay for xbox live.

slipknot0129

Anyone who feels a game is incomplete just because they didnt have a rewards syestem needs to reasses their life. Also, I thinkt he amin reason is they released at 600 dollars. They can have everything they did at launch, and I think it would have sold more then 360 mainly off of brand recognition. But it did have some great stuff at launch.

Well, I thought my 360 was awesome since day one. My PS3, not so much. But I didnt have fun with resistence.

People say it wasted its first year, guess what, most launched consoles do. The first year at best usually gets 1-2 good games. So while the PS3 was starting its first year (the bad year) the 360 was starting its 2nd (when the good stuff starts to hit).

The bad year (game wise) is almost unavoidable.