So, imagine that the PS3 released first ...

Do you think that the Xbox 360 would then be in 3rd place? If so, why?

This thread is going to be great.

Obviously.

The 360 is leading by what 7-8 million units? They had a year headstart.

If the tables were reversed, it would have been bad for 360. Launching 1st is the reason they are where they are today. You take that away, that wouldn't have been good at all.

The 360 wouldn't have had dev kits in pubs hands first, the 360 wouldn't have had momentum, and the 360 wouldn't have had an INSTALL base as leverage to make so many 3rd party exclusives turn to multiplats.

Games that were coming to PS3 exclusively like Assassin's Creed, DMC4, GTA4, RE5, Tekken 6, Virtua Fighter 5, etc. would have stayed exclusive, or been at least Timed Exclusive to the PS3 as was originally intended.

Forget Multiplats, games like Dead Rising, etc would have been on PS3 first as well.

Price would still have been a variable, of course...but coming out early would allow for cheaper consoles by 2009. INstead, Sony's a year behind.

Also, the PS3 would have had ZERO COMPETITION. No rivals. NO PS CONSOLES HAS EVER HAD THAT BENEFIT (Sega SATURN came out before PSOne, and SEGA DREAMCAST came out before PS2), it would have been smart for Sony.

The 360's Launch price was $400, which was expensive at the time but dropped in price.

That didn't happen, though, did it?

If it was released first it would probably be in a close race with the 360 simply due to the insane price point of the PS3 when released.

This thread is going to be great.

mD-

Yes it would be 3rd.

[QUOTE="mD-"]

This thread is going to be great.

Deiuos

I agree that the PS3's price tag would've alientated a lot of people, but then again, if it released around Christmas, it could've sold a great amount to kickstart a nice install base, like the Xbox 360 did, regardless of its price tag. Obviously less more than the 360, but, surely a good amount nonetheless.

We'd surely see a lot more PS3s in households -- I've only seen one in my lifetime as of now (in an actual house), and I know quite a good amount of gamers.

With a bigger time for development, perhaps the 360 wouldn't have the RROD problem -- they'd be a definite contender, as I feel they truly are leading the way in software, overall. (Maybe not this year).

GTA? Halo? FF13? A new MGS? Gears of War? Those are some solid franchises on a single platform.

The ridiculous price point is what has kept Sony at bay....It also seemed apparent to me that consumers were not ready for a "next-gen"...

So I don't know how much of a head start it would have been....if any at all..

I have a feeling this is a response to my thread.... :?

The PS3 would be 2nd place and would be $300 at least. 360 would be last and would not cost $200

I have a feeling this is a response to my thread.... :?

boredy-Mcbored

The PS3 would be 2nd place and would be $300 at least. 360 would be last and would not cost $200

jmdude

[QUOTE="jmdude"]

The PS3 would be 2nd place and would be $300 at least. 360 would be last and would not cost $200

Deiuos

[QUOTE="Deiuos"][QUOTE="jmdude"]

The PS3 would be 2nd place and would be $300 at least. 360 would be last and would not cost $200

jmdude

The ridiculous price point is what has kept Sony at bay....It also seemed apparent to me that consumers were not ready for a "next-gen"...

So I don't know how much of a head start it would have been....if any at all..

masiisam

That's the only explanation right now that's really keeping Sony's PS3 install base from growing. At the same time I think Halo 3 and even the lower price of the Xbox 360 a year later after this "hypothetical launch" would be enough to just even the score a bit(if not have Microsoft on the back door of Sony or tied by now).

Even today, I think there's a low percentage of consumers who still aren't ready for this generation of gaming. For instance; we have Final Fantasy fans still refusing to pick up a Playstation 3 or a Xbox 360 until Final Fantasy XIII is released(an the samething goes with some Tekken fans).

Regardless of the scenario I feel that the price tag for the Playstation 3 is the con that eventually affects consumer's decision. Even in 2009 today people are still talking about it. :?

Do you think that the Xbox 360 would then be in 3rd place? If so, why?

Deiuos

[QUOTE="Deiuos"]

Do you think that the Xbox 360 would then be in 3rd place? If so, why?

Trmpt

PS3 would have sold more than 360.

If's and But's don't feed hungry families.

Definitely. But since the PS3 is so expensive, the 360 wouldv'e caught up eventually.

A better theoretical situation would be... What if the PS3 wan't designed to win the format war and shove Bluray into everyone's home? The console would've been released first, and would've been cheaper...-GeordiLaForge-

[QUOTE="Trmpt"][QUOTE="Deiuos"]

Do you think that the Xbox 360 would then be in 3rd place? If so, why?

Warriorboy1990

I doubt. The PS3 problem wasnt only the later start. It was also the lack of games, the price, the false promisses (power of the cell, CGI = ingame, etc...)

If so, it would be very unfair imo

Obviously.

The 360 is leading by what 7-8 million units? They had a year headstart.

If the tables were reversed, it would have been bad for 360. Launching 1st is the reason they are where they are today. You take that away, that wouldn't have been good at all.

The 360 wouldn't have had dev kits in pubs hands first, the 360 wouldn't have had momentum, and the 360 wouldn't have had an INSTALL base as leverage to make so many 3rd party exclusives turn to multiplats.

Games that were coming to PS3 exclusively like Assassin's Creed, DMC4, GTA4, RE5, Tekken 6, Virtua Fighter 5, etc. would have stayed exclusive, or been at least Timed Exclusive to the PS3 as was originally intended.

Forget Multiplats, games like Dead Rising, etc would have been on PS3 first as well.

Price would still have been a variable, of course...but coming out early would allow for cheaper consoles by 2009. INstead, Sony's a year behind.

Also, the PS3 would have had ZERO COMPETITION. No rivals. NO PS CONSOLES HAS EVER HAD THAT BENEFIT (Sega SATURN came out before PSOne, and SEGA DREAMCAST came out before PS2), it would have been smart for Sony.

The 360's Launch price was $400, which was expensive at the time but dropped in price.

That didn't happen, though, did it?

SolidTy

Now when we imagine this are we saying that Sony and MS both waited for Blu-ray or are we saying that Sony jumped out with DVD and MS waited for Blu-ray.

of course it would have sold more then the 360.

[QUOTE="-GeordiLaForge-"]A better theoretical situation would be... What if the PS3 wan't designed to win the format war and shove Bluray into everyone's home? The console would've been released first, and would've been cheaper...surrealnumber5

So imagine the 360 would only cost 1$. It would ne first place now.Shoooryuken

If they dropped in 05 Would the CELL or Blu-ray be ready? If so wouldnt the PS3 have cost even more.

Would the powerz of teh Cellz be unlocked by now

With 360 dropping later, do they have Blu-ray andis there no RROD situation.

Would GT5 finally be out....I still dont think so :lol: jk

Honestly there is so many things that could have changed we will never know

if the PS3 was released 1st, developers would have to deal wz the cell alone>>>>>> better understanding to the cell>>>>> better games.

and of coures the unavoidlable fact: better sales.

The 360 might have been slacked to 3rd place. However, the price of the PS3 was around 700$ at laucnh, so maybe the 360 would have just been lagging behind a few million units.

Price is the only reason.The PlayStation brand is a mammoth. It's just that big.

Obviously.

The 360 is leading by what 7-8 million units? They had a year headstart.

If the tables were reversed, it would have been bad for 360. Launching 1st is the reason they are where they are today. You take that away, that wouldn't have been good at all.

The 360 wouldn't have had dev kits in pubs hands first, the 360 wouldn't have had momentum, and the 360 wouldn't have had an INSTALL base as leverage to make so many 3rd party exclusives turn to multiplats.

Games that were coming to PS3 exclusively like Assassin's Creed, DMC4, GTA4, RE5, Tekken 6, Virtua Fighter 5, etc. would have stayed exclusive, or been at least Timed Exclusive to the PS3 as was originally intended.

Forget Multiplats, games like Dead Rising, etc would have been on PS3 first as well.

Price would still have been a variable, of course...but coming out early would allow for cheaper consoles by 2009. INstead, Sony's a year behind.

Also, the PS3 would have had ZERO COMPETITION. No rivals. NO PS CONSOLES HAS EVER HAD THAT BENEFIT (Sega SATURN came out before PSOne, and SEGA DREAMCAST came out before PS2), it would have been smart for Sony.

The 360's Launch price was $400, which was expensive at the time but dropped in price.

That didn't happen, though, did it?

SolidTy

It didn't release first, thats all that matters.... contemplating "past ifs" is a waste of time and pointless.

it didnt happen so its useless to assume what would have happened should PS3 been released first..

All Sony needs to do is bring down PS3 to a $299 price-tag and surely it will boost sales for the coming years and increase by a considerable margin its WW instal base..

If PS3 released first then .... PS3 would have got RROD as its achievement.

Ofcourse the PS3 would have the upperhand third party games like Dead rising, GRAW, Bioshock...etc all would have been only for PS3, the price tag wouldn't even matter with such a big brand, also 90% multiplat gaming 10% exclusives might didn't happen too.

But thats a big IF.

Wishful thinking for the lose, the PS3 could sell more as easy as the Wii even with the 360 head start but you know the console have some flaws when it didn't.

The high price and bad launch titles crippled the console to outsell the 360 as it should have been, and when all things gone wrong and you think they have learned, they forgot why people wanted their console in the first place, you may ask why? the answer is simple, all of their former big third party exclusives that all people cared about and made the playstation brand what it is today, instead they gambled and made new unknown first party exclusives in hope people would care about these titles more than the biggest games in history of gaming, lol, they are stupid, thats all I can say.

there are a lot of hypotheticals with the Ps3. A lot of thigs that could have happened to ensure that is wasnt a useless piece of crap or a humongous failure. here's some things that would have helped

-it released first and got all the third party games the 360 got in its first year on market
-it didn't have almost nothing but garbage for it's first year on the market
-it wasnt overpriced
-it had a good online system
-it had a joypad that wasnt out of date 5 years ago
-backwards compatiblity with the PS2 on all models
-better versions of multiplatform games
-no mandatory installs or ridiculous load times
-third party exclusive support

as it is none of this happened. the ps3 became one of the biggest failures of all time and one of the worse consoles of all time, and that's a good thing

Do you think that the Xbox 360 would then be in 3rd place? If so, why?

Deiuos

there are a lot of hypotheticals with the Ps3. A lot of thigs that could have happened to ensure that is wasnt a useless piece of crap or a humongous failure. here's some things that would have helped

-it released first and got all the third party games the 360 got in its first year on market
-it didn't have almost nothing but garbage for it's first year on the market
-it wasnt overpriced
-it had a good online system
-it had a joypad that wasnt out of date 5 years ago
-backwards compatiblity with the PS2 on all models
-better versions of multiplatform games
-no mandatory installs or ridiculous load times
-third party exclusive support

as it is none of this happened. the ps3 became one of the biggest failures of all time and one of the worse consoles of all time, and that's a good thing

hy4k