So, imagine that the PS3 released first ...

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-it had a joypad that wasnt out of date 5 years ago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

The 360 would have been a god send and a lot of people would return their PS3 to get one. Making the install base higher for 360 and lower for PS3 within a year.

if the ps3 came out first it would have rrod

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

Yeah, that is pretty much what would have happened

MS would be eating sony's dust, unless they pulled a miricle.

I really don't understand the mods on these boards. They have to be the most inconsistent mods I've ever seen. I really don't care if I get suspended/banned for this, but I just want to say this. I get my entire post deleted because some mod see's it as flaming because I started the post off replying to someone saying "you are clueless...lol.." then elaborating on why he is by bringing up great points relevant to this topic. Funny thing I see much worse stuff on these boards sometimes, yet they don't ever get moderated. I'm really sick of it. I had a signature for about 4+ months and it wasn't until a few days ago that a mod said I'm not allowed to have it. I've been posting A LOT for the past 2 months and they suddenly find a cause to remove it? That's straight up inconsistency. I'm just really tired of it and this is just another thing that slowly pushes me further and further away from GameSpot.

considering the PS3 had 0 games available the year before launching id imagine the 360 launch ports from last gen would have looked like masterpieces.

hmm and say 360 didnt have RROD

but still its playstation compared to xbox, before this gen that was life rc cola compared to coke

I think if the wii has proven anything having a head start really means very little. Reality is sony doesn't have the "must have" console.

The 360 would still be ahead. Dev costs would remain the same, the ps3 would still be a pain to develop for so multiplats would still come to the 360, the console cost would be even higher because it was launching a year earlier and the 360 would of launched at a lower price, with a superior line up and could drop it's price faster and more than sony. Throw in the PC/360 games, the exclusives that blow the PS3s out the water in popularity so on n so on.

The only thing htat might of saved sony in that situation would be the wii taking the thunder out of the 360. That'd have nothing to do with sony though.

you're seriously overdoing it with the PS3 hate. you calling it one of the worst consoles of all time/ one of the biggest failures are both just your opinions. it's sold too much for it to be in that category.

idontbeliveit

it's sold about as much as the gamecube, coming off the most successfull console of all time. it's lost pretty much all third party exclusive support. it's cost sony 4-5 billion dollars and made them practically irrelevant to home console gaming.

it's arguably the biggest failure of all time and certainly one of the worst consoles of all time

EVERYONE was ready for what you people call "next-gen". Just not for a rip-off $600.00. :D

I really don't understand the mods on these boards. They have to be the most inconsistent mods I've ever seen. I really don't care if I get suspended/banned for this, but I just want to say this. I get my entire post deleted because some mod see's it as flaming because I started the post off replying to someone saying "you are clueless...lol.." then elaborating on why he is by bringing up great points relevant to this topic. Funny thing I see much worse stuff on these boards sometimes, yet they don't ever get moderated. I'm really sick of it. I had a signature for about 4+ months and it wasn't until a few days ago that a mod said I'm not allowed to have it. I've been posting A LOT for the past 2 months and they suddenly find a cause to remove it? That's straight up inconsistency. I'm just really tired of it and this is just another thing that slowly pushes me further and further away from GameSpot.

mD-

[QUOTE="mD-"]

I really don't understand the mods on these boards. They have to be the most inconsistent mods I've ever seen. I really don't care if I get suspended/banned for this, but I just want to say this. I get my entire post deleted because some mod see's it as flaming because I started the post off replying to someone saying "you are clueless...lol.." then elaborating on why he is by bringing up great points relevant to this topic. Funny thing I see much worse stuff on these boards sometimes, yet they don't ever get moderated. I'm really sick of it. I had a signature for about 4+ months and it wasn't until a few days ago that a mod said I'm not allowed to have it. I've been posting A LOT for the past 2 months and they suddenly find a cause to remove it? That's straight up inconsistency. I'm just really tired of it and this is just another thing that slowly pushes me further and further away from GameSpot.

Deiuos

Then there's a good chance that pal360 reported me to responded to his post... If true, that's such a lame move.

[QUOTE="Deiuos"][QUOTE="mD-"]

I really don't understand the mods on these boards. They have to be the most inconsistent mods I've ever seen. I really don't care if I get suspended/banned for this, but I just want to say this. I get my entire post deleted because some mod see's it as flaming because I started the post off replying to someone saying "you are clueless...lol.." then elaborating on why he is by bringing up great points relevant to this topic. Funny thing I see much worse stuff on these boards sometimes, yet they don't ever get moderated. I'm really sick of it. I had a signature for about 4+ months and it wasn't until a few days ago that a mod said I'm not allowed to have it. I've been posting A LOT for the past 2 months and they suddenly find a cause to remove it? That's straight up inconsistency. I'm just really tired of it and this is just another thing that slowly pushes me further and further away from GameSpot.

mD-

There's a good chance someone did.

I've been reported too many times to understand calling someone anything, such as "clueless", "stupid", "ignorant", etc. can result in a moderation as flaming, with or without reasoning.

The rules are way too strict here, and one moderator told me it was to basically teach all the players in System Wars how to argue with respect and maturity.

[QUOTE="idontbeliveit"] you're seriously overdoing it with the PS3 hate. you calling it one of the worst consoles of all time/ one of the biggest failures are both just your opinions. it's sold too much for it to be in that category.

hy4k

it's sold about as much as the gamecube, coming off the most successfull console of all time. it's lost pretty much all third party exclusive support. it's cost sony 4-5 billion dollars and made them practically irrelevant to home console gaming.

it's arguably the biggest failure of all time and certainly one of the worst consoles of all time

• The PS3 is not done in sales it still has a long time to go.
• The console has and will have some of the best titles this gen.
• It's the best bang for buck out of all three consoles this gen.
• I could see how it failed in your eyes when comparing to the PS2, but to call it the biggest failure of all time is just more proof that you either don't know what you're talking about or you really HATE the PS3 for ridiculous reasons (for example you don't like the controller and use that an additional excuse to bash it. The controller si good and it's easy to play games with, even if you don't think it's the best. The PS3 controller is better for its games than the PSP controller for its games. Most would agree with me).
• Lastly, the most important point is that since it didn't launch first, it lost a huge advantage of having more time to cut down the price, release multiplats first, establish a bigger fanbase and attach rate, and release the big first party titles sooner.

do you really think ps3 havin a head start would have made that much of a difference? imagine the games that would have been made in 2005.. they would have been even worse, then microsoft would have came in with a much cheaper console and possibly would have made a few changes for the better. The PS3 just simply isnt that great. :?

yes, I don't think people would of complained about the price as much either

• The PS3 is not done in sales it still has a long time to go.
• 10 year plan! the 360 and wii also have a long way to go, probably longer. protip disasters like the PS3 tend not to last as long as successful consoles
• The console has and will have some of the best titles this gen.
• so did the gamecube, N64, dreamcast and saturn
• It's the best bang for buck out of all three consoles this gen.
• :lol: that is an aboslutely meaningless statement with no basis in reality whatsoever
• I could see how it failed in your eyes when comparing to the PS2, but to call it the biggest failure of all time is just more proof that you either don't know what you're talking about or you really HATE the PS3 for ridiculous reasons (for example you don't like the controller and use that an additional excuse to bash it. The controller si good and it's easy to play games with, even if you don't think it's the best. The PS3 controller is better for its games than the PSP controller for its games. Most would agree with me).
• it lost 4-5 billion dollars, put sony in third place, lost them practically all third party support and made them into a laughing stock. you can really fail harder than that. the controller is an outdated piece of crap. it's been 12 years know and it hasnt changed. it's generally agreed by people who aren't sony apologists that is the worst controller this gen and outdated crap. PSP controls arent that good either but at least i dont preetend they are
• Lastly, the most important point is that since it didn't launch first, it lost a huge advantage of having more time to cut down the price, release multiplats first, establish a bigger fanbase and attach rate, and release the big first party titles sooner.
• it couldn't have launched first thanks to the pointless cell and the useless blu ray drive. even if it did, time was the least of its problems

mD-

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

Deiuos

[QUOTE="mD-"]

• The PS3 is not done in sales it still has a long time to go.
• 10 year plan! the 360 and wii also have a long way to go, probably longer. protip disasters like the PS3 tend not to last as long as successful consoles
• The console has and will have some of the best titles this gen.
• so did the gamecube, N64, dreamcast and saturn
• It's the best bang for buck out of all three consoles this gen.
• :lol: that is an aboslutely meaningless statement with no basis in reality whatsoever
• I could see how it failed in your eyes when comparing to the PS2, but to call it the biggest failure of all time is just more proof that you either don't know what you're talking about or you really HATE the PS3 for ridiculous reasons (for example you don't like the controller and use that an additional excuse to bash it. The controller si good and it's easy to play games with, even if you don't think it's the best. The PS3 controller is better for its games than the PSP controller for its games. Most would agree with me).
• it lost 4-5 billion dollars, put sony in third place, lost them practically all third party support and made them into a laughing stock. you can really fail harder than that. the controller is an outdated piece of crap. it's been 12 years know and it hasnt changed. it's generally agreed by people who aren't sony apologists that is the worst controller this gen and outdated crap. PSP controls arent that good either but at least i dont preetend they are
• Lastly, the most important point is that since it didn't launch first, it lost a huge advantage of having more time to cut down the price, release multiplats first, establish a bigger fanbase and attach rate, and release the big first party titles sooner.
• it couldn't have launched first thanks to the pointless cell and the useless blu ray drive. even if it did, time was the least of its problems

hy4k

You said it sold as much as the gamecube and this gen isn't even over yet. You talked about how it lost it's third party exclusivitity, but it's still a great console for games with the third party titles along with its first party titles.

Best bang for buck = most features out of all three systems for it's price. There's no way you can deny this.

- Blu-ray players are still very costly today, let alone GOOD ones. PS3 is one of the best blu ray players.

- PS3 is better at streaming video formats and it can stream/play more video formats than any other console.

- Built-in wifi is standard

- Free online play is standard

- Internet Browser is standard

- Rechargeable controllers are standard

- Bluetooth support is standard

- Hard drive is easily upgradeable

- Comparing both timelines to each other, the PS3 overall has been the more reliable console

Now, I'm not saying that everyone is going use all these features or they care for them, but here it's clear that the PS3 gives the most bang for buck in terms of features compared to the Wii and Xbox, hands down. The most clear cut way that makes this statement true is its blu-ray, which is relatively cheap compared to the best blu-ray players out today.

The Playstation's controller doesn't really need to change. It works well and I almost NEVER see people complain about as much as you have You are being way too sensitive about it and being over picky. To me, both the Xbox 360 controller and PS3 controller are great. The 360 molds to the hand better and I think more would argue that it's better (except for fighting games). But, that doesn't mean the PS3 controller is bad by any means. I've never had trouble controlling when playing very good games.

This thread is saying IF it launched first (addressing your last point).