Year head start is irrelevant

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

Head starts are irrelevant in general. It didn't stop the PS2 from crushing the Dreamcast, did it?

dare

what's my dare?

The head start argument is irrelevant because this is business and not what ifs. Every company is capable of launching at anytime, if you choose not to, that's you're loss. Its no one elses problem. Is it a reason to be behind? Absolutely yes, is it one I should cut you slack for? Not a chance in hell my friends.

I chose lolwut :P.

And yes, the year head start is irrelevant.

The head start is irrelevant, I agree. The PS3 came out and $600.

Developer support is what matters. 360 had good support at launch just like the PS2.

It is irrelevant but not for the reasons you mentioned......reasons that aren't even in effect yet

Who cares if it had a headstart? One of them is beating the other in sales. It's fair game. This is business not a sport where an advantage is considered cheating. In Business it's more than fair game to gain some advantagesjg4xchamp

I couldn't agree more. Well said.

the year head start will always be relevantKevinButlerVP

the year head start will always be relevantKevinButlerVP

Even though the ps3 is outselling 360 worldwide and will most likely pass it at some point?

It was relevant as far as 07 and 08, but in 2010 it isn't relevant at all.

the year head start will always be relevantKevinButlerVP

Why? One console is always going to come out earlier.

the year head start will always be relevantKevinButlerVP

Why? Because you need some excuse to hide behind? :roll:

the year head start will always be relevantKevinButlerVP

technically 'what ifs' don't come close to working.

technically, if they launched at the same time the 'what if' that can also take effect is that they could be in an even worse situation than they are now. so it is in fact irrelevant.

they tried launching in Spring 2006, in case you wanted another example of irrelevant.

True.

PS2>Dreamcast

SNES>Genesis

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

False dichotomy. That the Wii has outsold the 360 and the PS3 despite releasing a year after the former, doesn't mean that the 360 having a higher install base than the PS3 is not in part because it released a year before it.

It is of course not the only reason, they number among them the exorbitant launch price, the lack of quality launch software, releasing alongside the sales phenomenon that is the Wii and poor initial marketing of the system.

But it's not a reason that can or should be used for supposition about "what ifs" nor does it really mitigate the current situation. Reality is reality.

Can't quite agree with you're reasons Silver, but I do agree with the idea that the year head start is irrelevant. As much as PS3-supporters want to cling to the fit, the year head start, in the long run, isn't why the PS3 is in last place. Crappy Launch + No Killer Apps in early years + Ridiculous price in comparison to Wii and 360.

move coming out has nothing to do will 360 coming out a year ahead. 360s head start will always be relevant and if ps3 outsells it after all these years lems have used 3rd place as some type of ownage then major lulz will occur

1.) The PS Move is launching mid-cycle and won't be the sole focus of marketing nor control interface. Nor will all of the software support that hardware. That's not a sound comparison IMO.

2.) I don't consider the 360 launch a "head-start" (though it's easy to type). It just released on the market first. Sony and Nintendo didn't say: "Go ahead Redmond, we'll let you launch before us as a handicap". The PS3 and Wii just weren't ready.

3.) The time at which a system enters the market is very much relevant I believe. It (along with other variables) can effect the industry and entities in multiple ways--be they positive or negative. It just baffles me how anyone can believe that MS didn't gain an advantage over it's competitor(s) with the earlier launch. That's not an excuse, it's cause and effect.

move coming out has nothing to do will 360 coming out a year ahead. 360s head start will always be relevant and if ps3 outsells it after all these years lems have used 3rd place as some type of ownage then major lulz will occur

Respawn-d

You certainly have a burning desire to make this point TC, as I remember some months back you were spearheading this same sentiment in multiple topics. And people disagreed. I'll say again what I said then:

Is the year headstart the only reason the 360 has a larger install base over the PS3? No. Obviously, consoles CAN overcome such deficits. We've seen it several times.

Does that mean a full year as the only HD console on the market is irrelevant? Of course not. The PS3 has outsold the 360 in the time since Sony's console came to market. It allowed the 360 to build a nice library of games before the PS3 existed. It was a factor in developers using the 360 as the lead console in multiplat games. It helped convince 3rd party publishers to bring their previously Sony exclusive titles to the 360... all of which has, to whatever extent you want to believe, helped the 360 sell strong after the PS3 launched.

I don't understand the need some have to pretend the facts of the matter don't exist. The 360 launched a year ahead of the competition, and built a solid install base when there was no competition. We wouldn't pretend a headstart in a footrace wouldn't matter between 2nd and 3rd place runners, simply because Usain Bolt came charging up from the rear. Sony and Microsoft both made "also rans" this generation when it comes to sales. But why try to change the facts of the "race"? Does it offend you that the Sony system has done as well or better than the 360 in the same amount of time? Why should you even care?

The big question: Do you really believe that if the 360 launched a year behind the PS3, that it would have the same lead it has now over the PS3? If you don't, then there's your rebuttal.

If you do... well, let's just say you're not gonna find a lotta sensible people agreeing with you.

Lemming like the TC and champ obviously think it's irrelevant out convenience. P.S: Love the sig. silverbond. Dystopian-X

This thread is just begging to be hijacked. :P

The Xbox 360 launching a year ahead has allowed it to establish a fan base for the system, gave Microsoft more time to cut down on their manufacturing costs over time, gave them the opportunity to develop a strong strategic framework to operate on, gave them the advantage of being able to shift strategy when reacting to the competition (of Sony and Nintendo), allowed them to bring a better line up of games sooner than Sony, and has overall benefited them in the long run. Just saying...

dare

what's my dare?

CDUB316

Who cares if it had a headstart? One of them is beating the other in sales. It's fair game. This is business not a sport where an advantage is considered cheating. In Business it's more than fair game to gain some advantagesjg4xchamp

Of course it's fair - and highly desireable - to gain advantages over your competition. Of course, by acknowledging the advantage, you've also vouched for it's relevance... if it weren't relevant, there would BE no advantage. :roll:

Companies brag about their strategy and efforts to one up their competition. Executives use them as ways to validate their worth. Fanboys try to pretend such things made no difference anyhow... because it might make the object of their affection's "triumph" a little less clear.

360- 2005

PS3 + Wii- 2006

Wii>360>PS3

The Wii was the last of the current gen systems to be released and is winning the sales war. "But Silverbond, surely you must acknowledge that they target different audiences." Two word response: Notanymore.

So here is what I propose: If the PS3 can't outsell the 360 in the amount of time it took the Wii to outsell the 360 when Move releases then the headstart becomes irrelevant.

And even, then the "audience arguement" is completely moronic considering that what you are in effect saying is that the PS2 and Xbox + GC targeted different audiences.

Silverbond

I think you are missing a couple facts here. Let's start.

1.PS3/360/Wii all had BIG differences in price, you can't exactly compare the wii's success running at 250 compared to the PS3 running at 600...

2.The wii had a different target audience AT LAUNCH, the PS3/360 are now going to be targetting that audience (they haven't even started yet)

I agree,it´s irrelevant.

Head starts are irrelevant in general. It didn't stop the PS2 from crushing the Dreamcast, did it?

DarkLink77

... the year head start is not the reason the wii outsold the ps3, or eventually outsold the 360. Does anyone honestly believe the Wii would have sold as much if it started at $400... or the PlayStation 3 would not have sold more if it started at $400? Hmm...stiggy321

Of course other factors also come into consideration when discussing the install base, and I completely agree that there are some obvious variables aside from release date worth mentioning. This thread was started by someone adamantly wishing to supress some of the facts and rely on others. And that's just plain dishonest. Only when you are willing to factor all of the considerations are you even trying to get the truth, and not just a talking point for SW.

I stand by my statement. Unless you are willing to claim that the 360 would have the exact same install base advantage on the PS3 it has now, even if it launched a year after Sony, then you're admitting there is SOME sort of relevance.

I'll leave the fight over how much to the rest of you. But the premise of this thread is rather obviously flawed.

The head start argument is irrelevant because this is business and not what ifs. Every company is capable of launching at anytime, if you choose not to, that's you're loss. Its no one elses problem. Is it a reason to be behind? Absolutely yes, is it one I should cut you slack for? Not a chance in hell my friends.

ActicEdge

If it is a contributing reason for the differences in install bases by your reckoning, then you're saying it's relevant. Giving it relevance doesn't mean nothing else counts, just that it counts too. Should System Warriors be allowed to flaunt 360 install base over the PS3? Sure, if that's your thing, go for it. It's a fact. Denying it relevance is to say it had ZERO impact on the current state of the gaming industry, and you don't seem willing to make that statement.

[QUOTE="KevinButlerVP"]the year head start will always be relevantAdobeArtist

Why? Because you need some excuse to hide behind? :roll:

Since when is presenting all the fact of an argument a crime? You're indicting him for "hiding behind" the truth?

If a year headstart worth millions of sales is irrelevant, then at least be uniform in your argument. If the 360's first years sales weren't relevant, then don't count them. Surely you can see the irrationality behind claiming zero sales by Sony in the 360's first year is completely irrelevant, but holding that all those sales made by Microsoft have to count to make your point...

No good comes when people start altering history to better present their side of an argument. If you want to talk business, talk business. If you want to try to squeeze this generation into some silly race, you're gonna have to come to some sort of fair agreement. Choose a common starting point, perhaps. Denote a headstart, if that's your preference. But don't ignore facts to promote a distorted view of the truth. The 360 has a larger install base when compared to the PS3, and a sizeably larger marketshare than they enjoyed last gen. This came about because of a variety of reasons... not the least of which is the 360 launched a year ahead... which is EXACTLY why they did launch then.

I ask you as I've asked the others: Would the install base of the two systems be Identical now if the 360 launched a year after the PS3? If you answered "no", this whole argument is dead.

I think xbox fans are way into sales and the fact that the PS3 is about to pass the 360 with a year(and a half) head start, while the PS3 was always WAY more expensive is really getting to them. You guys call it an excuse but it's a fact, it's the truth. I find it pathetic the way you guys claim ownage for being ahead honestly, and I fully expect the 360 to stop selling before the PS3, and then when the PS3 passes the 360 you guys will say "it's no longer relevant" lol, will that be an excuse? Everone and their mom knows by now the PS3 will end up in front of the 360 this gen, but who cares... Let it go.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Who cares if it had a headstart? One of them is beating the other in sales. It's fair game. This is business not a sport where an advantage is considered cheating. In Business it's more than fair game to gain some advantagessantoron

Of course it's fair - and highly desireable - to gain advantages over your competition. Of course, by acknowledging the advantage, you've also vouched for it's relevance... if it weren't relevant, there would BE no advantage. :roll:

Companies brag about their strategy and efforts to one up their competition. Executives use them as ways to validate their worth. Fanboys try to pretend such things made no difference anyhow... because it might make the object of their affection's "triumph" a little less clear.

[QUOTE="santoron"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]Who cares if it had a headstart? One of them is beating the other in sales. It's fair game. This is business not a sport where an advantage is considered cheating. In Business it's more than fair game to gain some advantagesjg4xchamp

Of course it's fair - and highly desireable - to gain advantages over your competition. Of course, by acknowledging the advantage, you've also vouched for it's relevance... if it weren't relevant, there would BE no advantage. :roll:

Companies brag about their strategy and efforts to one up their competition. Executives use them as ways to validate their worth. Fanboys try to pretend such things made no difference anyhow... because it might make the object of their affection's "triumph" a little less clear.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="santoron"]

Of course it's fair - and highly desireable - to gain advantages over your competition. Of course, by acknowledging the advantage, you've also vouched for it's relevance... if it weren't relevant, there would BE no advantage. :roll:

Companies brag about their strategy and efforts to one up their competition. Executives use them as ways to validate their worth. Fanboys try to pretend such things made no difference anyhow... because it might make the object of their affection's "triumph" a little less clear.

Mestitia

[QUOTE="Mestitia"]

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] I don't think anywhere in my post I said it wasn't relevant. I just said that as far as it being a good excuse. It's not. If the 360 gained games over that, and it's padded the library. Than tough. If that's why the 360 ends up beating the PS3 in sales than tough. Plain and simple all they did was launch early and gained an advnatage. What other relevance does it have. It doesn't negate the library having more AAA/AA/A games than the PS3 or higher sales just because it had a 1 year start. That's an advantage they gained, and honestly it's fair game. jg4xchamp