[QUOTE="StreetRodJack"]

I would have expected a lot more from a machine that cost 50% more at launch.

The_Crucible

I would have expected more from a system with a year lead.

See, i can do it too.:)

I would think the system that came out later would be better, no? I think that coming out a year earlier is a handicap.

There's more rain in the PS3 version I guess.espoac

I would have expected a lot more from a machine that cost 50% more at launch.

Im sorry, but no one really care about the next gen dvd formats. Be it HD or Blu-ray. At this moment its just not important to consumers.DHReese

SONY cares. The fate of PS3 and Blu-ray are intertwined. Any good news for HD DVD is bad for PS3, as it loses one of it's selling points. BTW, I got my $98 HD DVD player at Walmart this morning.

With the PS3 now more consumer friendly being at 400 bucks, other gaming platforms can't compete. The Wii is a fad that will die shortly and the 360 is done now that Halo 3 is forgotten.

cshwzp

PS2 outsold xbox by a 5 to 1 margin last generation. This generation, cows are hoping and praying that PS3 matches the 360's sales on even terms. Even if it does, the console cannot be considered anything other than a failure by SONY if it doesn't match the PS2's dominance.

They offer no compelling reason to buy one. They lose on price,games and on-line experience. The graphics would need to be generation ahead to make up this deficit, but they are not.

Being a year late didn't help. To quote CSA General Nathaniel Bedford Forrest, the winner of a battle is the one who get's there "the firstest with mostest". PS3 got there last with the least.

[QUOTE="mingo123"]sonic 2, splinter cell chaos theoryDeliriumGlo

Amen. But I've got to add Warcraft II & Warcraft III to that list.

Agree with Sonic 2.

[QUOTE="AdmiralDan"]

"Microsoft is notorious for cashing in on the ignorance and instant gratification mentality of most consumers."

Sure...and other companies (cough Sony cough) don't try to do the same thing? Actually, now that i read it again, that statement doesn't even make much sense. The fact of the matter is that Sony has not delivered any worth while software where as Microsoft has. I don't really give a care about minuscule textures and draw distances if the game blows in the first place (see Lair) or can be finished in 6 hours (see HS) and thus is costing me basically $10/hour for the first playthrough. Tout the obscure Cell numbers all you want, but all that matters is results, and if Sony doesn't start producing they will be the next Sega.

animateria

That Microsoft quote can replace the 'Microsoft' with Sony, Nintendo, EA, Activision, etc,etc...

And yeah. Hardware isn't as important as the software that supports it.

Exactly right. IBM owned the PC market, but thought the money was in the hardware. They sold the business to Lenovo 3 years ago after continually losing money on it. MS saw, correctly, that the money was in the software. Same applies here.

[QUOTE="StreetRodJack"]

SONY is merely realizing unit sales earlier, which comes at the expense of profit numbers (all are sold at a loss). They are counting sales to retailers on their books prior to the actual shipment of said units to the retailer. That is all this is. In the past they did not book the sale until the unit was actually shipped. This method just places the transaction on their books earlier, as retailers buy units from SONY before SONY ships them.

3picuri3

call it what you will - it's a dishonest manipulative tactic to try to spin poor sales. any time a company changes the way they account for sales when sales are dismal is usually just that.

unless you want to back this up with numbers and links i will continue to assume what I've read is correct.

and if you're correct, all this means is that sony has counted all of it's 40 gig sales before they were actually sold... ooo, big suprise, retailers picked up your bargain bin SKU to try to push the hundreds of PS3 games sitting on their shelves collecting dust.

What have you read? The SONY report clearly states in the footnote the way they changed the method. Fanboys like the new way as it seems to increase unit sale numbers. Stock holders don't like it, as it means that SONY is recording losses earlier. SONY can only count what they have sold. They cannot report sales that have not been booked on their ledger (the CEO and CFO would be in jail if they did). The units can rot on shelves at Best Buy for years, but SONY has acurrately reported their sales.

[QUOTE="Shadow2k6"][QUOTE="Cristallis"][QUOTE="v-vega75"]

so if MS is shipped. what does that make sony. liars. because they count units shipped to retailers as sold numbers. and cows tend to beleive them. so in reallity sony isn't at 5mil sold. thanks for clearing that up 3picuri3

MS = Shipped

Sony and Nintendo = Sold to retailers.

There is a difference.

Yeah some people can't comprehend the concept. When MS says shipped it usually means shipped to wholesalers. Which is totally different then sold to retailers. Wholesalers sell it to retailers so what Sony and Nintendo report as sold is actually sold in the business world since there is no way to track sales to consumers. MS's shipped to wholesalers just means it sits in a warehouse until the wholesaler can sell it to a retailer. Totally different things.

man, some of you are so ignorant, read the link i just provided. MS and Sony always reported shipping to warehouses... Sony JUST CHANGED THIS QUARTER to report at sold to retailers to fudge their numbers in what was the worst month for the PS3 due to Halo 3.

stop getting your info from forums and VGCharts.

SONY is merely realizing unit sales earlier, which comes at the expense of profit numbers (all are sold at a loss). They are counting sales to retailers on their books prior to the actual shipment of said units to the retailer. That is all this is. In the past they did not book the sale until the unit was actually shipped. This method just places the transaction on their books earlier, as retailers buy units from SONY before SONY ships them.