Timing is of the utmost importance when you release a console. Unfortunately, timing is mostly a factor of luck. There are too many unknowns to time a console launch perfectly. Production problems, consumer demand, software development delays, loss of demand for certain types of software...these are all things beyond the company's control. A bad launch can kill a console, while a mediocre launch can cripple a console for the rest of it's life. Sometimes, even an excellent launch can't get a console off the ground if the company has had a series of disappointments.

In 1995, the PS1 was launched at an ideal time. The console market was a two-horse race. Sega and Nintendo were in a slow battle with their SNES and Genesis console war, and always seemingly in a deadlock. The Genesis launched first and crept ahead, Sonic was released and it became a contender, the SNES got Street Fighter II and gained ground, the Genesis had the version of Mortal Kombat with blood in it and became edgier, SNES had Donkey Kong Country and boasted next-gen visuals....meanwhile both systems were basically getting the same big third party releases, with little differences. While arcade showed glimpses of what the future held in terms of 3D, the SNES's Super FX chip and Sega's CD add-on peripheral could not offer an experience "next generation" enough to justify the high prices. By the time the Sega's 32X hit and did nothing more than offer the SNES's colour palette to it's 2D games, coupled with the appearance of the headache inducing Virtual Boy,the market was undoubtably stale.

Although there had been other entries to the market coming from 3DO, Phillips and Atari...Sony's machine put on the best show for what gamers at the time wanted. Ridge Racer was an incredible showcase for the system, and the systems 3D abilities along with promises of slick production values due to the CD format, the Playstation was born into success. Nintendo's arrogance would cost them market leader for a number of reasons (cartridges, third party bullying, ignoring consumer demand) and Sega's disorganization would keep them inept. The perfect window of opprotunity. With early games like Ridge Racer, Warhawk, Resident Evil and Tomb Raider, Sony proved that the next generation was here. The fact that the name "Sony" already carried weight among electronics owners as a trusted-name brand didn't hurt either.

Fast forward to the year 2000. The Playstation had become a household name. The gaming industry had grown considerably since the launch of the Playstation, mostly due to the existance of the Playstation. The PS2 was on the horizon and it had an indesputable collection of promising titles on the way. Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Turismo 3 and Silent Hill 2 were all incredibly anticipated. Sony's success with the PS1 showed some people that they had what it took to compete with the big guns like Sega and Nintendo. To others, it was just the passing of the torch from toy companies to a true electronic entertainment medium.

Whispers of the appearant death of Sega were foreshadowed by EA's lack of support for the Dreamcast. Microsoft's interest in the market created a great unknown variable, and Nintendo's state of management transition left it on a predictable path. The safest option at the time was Sony. You see, there was no Oblivion alternative to Final Fantasy, no Splinter Cell alternative to Metal Gear Solid and no Forza Motor Sport alternative to Grand Turismo back then. Halo had a chance at being a promising PC game and the Grand Theft Auto series was still in 2D. Sony was the safe choice. There were simply no alternatives that could effectively compete on the same level. Unfortunately, the PS3 could not enjoy either of these situations, and not really through any fault of Sony's. Other than Sony believing one of these scenarios still existed.

The Playstation 3 was launched too early, and it was launched too late.

The Playstation 3 was launched too early. There are many, many reasons to argue this. Foremostly, all regions could not be launched at the same time. Europe will launch in a month of so of this writing, to consumers who may have: already bought another next generation system, been soured by Sony's selection of Europe to be the region that goes without or become reluctant to invest in Sony's machine since it's failure to "sell out" in the other regions. The PS3 should have been launched in ALL regions.

Secondly, there are no competative titles on the radar for months. Ridge Racer 7 doesn't quite have as much of an impact when Ridge Racer 6 is available on the Xbox 360. Resistance is not as fulfilling an experience as Gears of War. Final Fantasy XIII, Metal Gear Solid 4 and Grand Turisimo 5 all have serious competition. The PS3 should have been launched with stellar games, if not two, at least one.

Thirdly, the state of services Sony is offering with the PS3 can't be called anything but rushed. The online service is functional, but surprisingly lacking considering they've had a successful model to compare with for over a year. The PSP connectivity features are a mess, and will certainly go the way of the GC/GBA connectivity fiasco is they are not redesigned soon. The PS3 should have launched competent services, or launched the services when the were ready to be competitive.

Finally, while it isn't an issue now, it shouldn't have been at launch. Lack of stock. How many more PS3's could have been sold if Sony had met consumers demand? How many sales were lost to the competition because of this? How many people would have bought a PS3 if it had been a simple experience? The should have been enough PS3's to meet consumer demand.

At the same time though, the PS3 was launched too late. While the Xbox 360 had only a year's head start, it seems that all that Microsoft needed. Microsoft actually started working on the Xbox 360's launch in the middle of the original Xbox's lifespan, showing an incredible amount of preparedness rarely seen in this industry. Within a year's time, the Xbox has provided gamers with more quality next generation games and services than Sony can hope to accomplish in 2007. Sony's obsession to custom create everything inside the PS3 has cost them precious development time, time that may not pay off anytime soon. Development kits went out too late, and the architecture is too complex for low cost port-support, causing many games to not even utilize Sony's machine as well as they utilize the Xbox 360. Sony should have been ready to meet Microsoft in the market in a much more competitive timeframe.

Also, launching within days of Nintendo's Wii, was not particularily wise either. Nintendo's Wii is competition that could have been avoided due to the unique design and ultimately different market approach than either the PS3 or Xbox 360. Launching within days of each other only forced consumers who hadn't been following the available media on either machine to assume a sense of equality between the two platforms where essentially none exists. It's true that both compete for dollars in the same market, but as we'll explore soon, a completely different type of consumer. The PS3 should have launched long before the Wii.

Of course, it was impossible for Sony to be "on time". They were doomed to be too early or too late in one sense or another, but not being able to minimize the damage done from either can simply be called altogether "bad timing". As we'll soon discuss though, this is not the only aspect of timing in which they've failed. It seems that the market has changed, and Sony hasn't changed with it.

Next: (Part 3) The end of an era