At a consistent price, if they all launched at the same time? I think the Wii would have a 10 million lead over the PS3, which would have a >5 million lead over the Xbox 360. Edit: This is under the assumption it would be financially stable for them.
Yeah at that price they would be still be digging their way out of that financial hole.
Heck even now the console manufacturers, with their record earnings, are STILL IN THE HOLE!
5.5 billion for Xbox:http://www.businessinsider.com/next-xbox-may-be-profitable-on-day-one-2011-4
It's only now, after 5 years , that they are earning a LOT of profit, enough that in a couple of years they'll start to make a profit over the lifetime of the brand.
.. People who think the PS3 sold poorly simply for the price don't know what they are talking about.. It nose dived into the ground with lack of good exclusives..
So you want Nintendo to lose a ton of money & Microsoft & Sony to lose a whole lot of money than Nintendo in which they'll shut down their gaming divisions?
The PS3 and the Wii would have been neck and neck from the very start with the 360 sitting in a very uncomfortable distant third place, maybe 30+ million units behind if not more.
.. People who think the PS3 sold poorly simply for the price don't know what they are talking about.. It nose dived into the ground with lack of good exclusives.. sSubZerOo
The main reason was the price, it was of course a combined factor of having a significantly higher price than the competition, without a library to make that price worthwhile. If you look back at the launch games of both the X360 and Wii, you will realize they did just as bad as Sony, and how next to nothing to offer at launch. But given the Wii's cheap price and motion control "gimmick" it sold better than both the X360 and PS3, regardless of the fact that it had a relatively poor game library.
The PS3 would have blown the other consoles out of the water but unfortunately wouldn't be used as a gaming console as much as the other two. What if...what if...
It depends on what criteria you use to decide who's winning.
If you use consoles sold as the criteria then the PS3 would win since a$250 game console/blu-ray player would have sold extremely well back in 2006.
But if you use profit made/lost as the criteria then the Wii would win. Sony and Microsoft would have lost a lot (even more) money if the'd sold their consoles at those prices. I think even Nintendo would have lost money at that price, but not neirly as much.
I guess the biggest winners would have been the players/buyers of the consoles since they would get them a lot cheaper than they actually did.
sony could be very well winning on sales but ninty would be winning on making money. they wouldnt be taking very large hits at 150 for the wii (maybe a 50-60 quid hit per console). assuming were talking about the PS3 as is sony would have hemmoraged an incredibly insane amount of money..possibly to the point where shareholders would demand that sony pull the plug. not even the biggest companies could make a sustainable business out of selling something mass market like the PS3 at a 550 loss a pop (it cost sony about 800 quid to make one at launch). i reckon the 360 would also be left in 3rd and only be doing a bit better than the xbox 1. they would also be leaking money at a very nasty rate. MS have done a great job on capitalising on sonys mistakes this gen and getting people tied into live. this in turn is building more momentum now. but if they didnt have that momentum at the start of gen then i dont think it would be as successful as it is now. the wii would be doing alot better than the GC and would probably be competative against the PS3 in sales. the excitement people had for the wii at the time had nothing to do with sonys mistakes. it was something fresh and the market was excited. at 150 its also in impulse buy territory...loads of people would take a punt.
At a consistent price, if they all launched at the same time? I think the Wii would have a 10 million lead over the PS3, which would have a >5 million lead over the Xbox 360. Edit: This is under the assumption it would be financially stable for them. Blabadon
Two things are for certain, the PS3 would have ben in a much better position right now and the Wii would have had the highest sales still due to the untapped casual market. I don't know about numbers, but sales wise it would have ben Wii > PS3 > 360.
If we pretended these prices were profitable I'd say Wii would be the leader with PS3 in second and 360 not far behind. The only problem is the $250 blu-ray player issue that would greatly inflate PS3 numbers.
.. People who think the PS3 sold poorly simply for the price don't know what they are talking about.. It nose dived into the ground with lack of good exclusives.. sSubZerOo
I just can't see a $600 system ever selling well, regardless of how many exclusives it has. People talk about the 3DS being too expensive at $250; $600 is just a stratosphere price to pay for a gaming console. Even if it launched with Metal Gear Solid 4, I don't think it would have changed much.
It's no coincidence that the PS3's first "good" financial quarter -- October-December 2007 -- coincided with the $399 price drop.
The PS3 would advertise it's blu ray, but netflix has really hurt blu ray... so that has to be factored. I rarely play my wii or my PS3 but my 360 gets turned on when I get home. Games are the main issue and 360 started well but it's integration of netflix and other ... PS3 was too consumed with the blue ray contest and wii had a lot of empty promises for what it would bring this generation. Each one said at one time or another that they were battling to see who had the best system, they were battling to see who got control of the living room.
Log in to comment