Money, marketshare and third-party exclusive support.Having Blu-Ray is the biggest reason why the PS3 was so expensive at launch, which led to the massive difference in sales from the PS2 to the PS3. During that time the 360 built a very solid userbase, and that's why games believed/supposed PS3 exclusives (GTAIV, Assassin's Creed, FFXIII, Tekken, etc) ended in the 360. That's without saying how much money it was lost for selling the PS3 at a loss.
Part of the pre-hype/marketing popularized the idea that games were gonna get sooo big that they couldn't fit on DVDs, but now, more than 5 years into this gen, we can see that that's simply not true, since the vast majority of games fit on a single DVD, and the fewthat don't solve that problem easily with more.IronBass
[QUOTE="LOXO7"] Blaming why PS3 is at where it is at right now is fooie. Why not take out the entire history of Sony if we are going to put the blame on blu-ray? It's Sony. That's what they do. "Wow look at what the PS2 did to GC and Dreamcast!" No no. Cd to DVD good. DVD to blu-ray bad. It's common sense really.IronBass
I don't think I understand what are you saying. Could you clarify it, please?Sony just did what Sony does. PS1, PS2, PS3. They are all different formats. We could say the PS3 would have been as much of a success as the PS2 if it stayed in DVD AND have more exclusive lineups at the start AND probably have it being launched at the same time as the 360. But that isn't Sony. PS1, PS2, PS2.1? No.
That "common sense" part was saracasm. As in what ever Sony did with PS2 was right. And what ever Sony did with PS3 was bad.
Log in to comment