Forums - Gaming Discussion - What if: Sony and Microsoft had both launched in 2005 at $399?

let's say they went without the cell processor AND bluray player which would cut costs.  Let's say they went with similar architecture to the PS2 to cut BC costs.  They would still have to take a good loss for the player, but could probably afford to cut prices the same as Microsoft.  They would also have similar versions of multiplats especially early in the life cycle.

Without their year head start and the millions of units lead it brought, plus the competitive pricing of PS3 along with BC, most PS2 owners would choose to switch directly to PS3.  While Microsoft would still have hits like Gears and Forza, only Halo would skyrocket to superstardom.  This would also be partly due to games like GT5 being released earlier in the lifecycle of PS3 due to the easier to program for tech.  Developers like Bethesda would have a much easier time porting games to PS3 and it would become the lead platform with its sales lead.

However Wii cannot be discounted and it would still achieve a good degree of success.  I see Wii sales as staying mostly the same, but the PS3 would match it every step of the way as it devoured Microsoft's potential market of HD gamers while Nintendo's blue ocean strategy pays off by capturing the casuals as it did.  With a healthier install base for PS3 and a much more ignorable market share for 360, the PS3 keeps FF13 as an exclusive among others.  Rockstar gives PS3 exclusive content for GTA4.  360 still achieves greater success than the original Xbox as PS3 does not launch a year ahead.  I believe the sales figures around this time would be more like this...

PS3: 95-100 million

Wii: 90-95 million

360: 40-45 million

Basically the PS3 steals 360's market while exclusives like Halo and Gears still draw some away.  However Sony gets a much bigger slice as most would go with the Playstation brand on an even battleground with one not costing 50% more than the other.  Third party games still go to Xbox but the PS3 versions sell better for the most part.  The Move is never introduced as Sony has a healthy market and Kinect finds some success and helps 360 take some of the Wii market late in the cycle.  

The WiiU is introduced at roughly the same time as Wii sales track mostly the same as on our timeline.  Microsoft announces a successor at E3 2012 due Holiday 2013.  Sony introduces a successor in January 2013 to be released at the same time as it sees a significant threat from Microsoft with its doubled market this gen.  Basically the next gen release goes about the same with Microsoft perhaps launching a year earlier.  Microsoft is also forced to cut Xbox live subscription fees completely and PS+ is never introduced as the PSN lives healthily with no subscription early on.  The PS3's incredible exclusives help it keep distance from Microsoft thoughout the end of the cycle.  There is only 1 PS3 slim which doesn't cut BC and narrows the cost to $250 for a 250gb model in 2010 to match the 360 slim the previous year for the same price.  It promptly sells like crazy as the PS3 is cut to $199 before the holiday 2011 season to match 360.

Of course a dream scenarion would be that this forces Microsoft out of gaming and Sega re-enters as it sees the potential to cut into both markets as it launches the Sega (insert awesome name) to launch in 2013, but that would be impossible unfortunately.

EDIT: Ok let's say they took the bluray player out as well and just used multiple DVDs to cut costs since everyone is hung up on how they reached that price.



Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
xbox wouldn't have been as successful.

The Xbox 360 would of shared the same fate as the Xbox, although Xbox Live could of still been very popular and enough to push the system to success.

Andrespetmonkey said:
The Xbox 360 would of shared the same fate as the Xbox, although Xbox Live could of still been very popular and enough to push the system to success.

by same fate do you mean significantly less sales, or 24 million again?



Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

As the old saying goes - if your Aunty had a willy - she'd be your uncle.

These "if x console released for x dollars in the year 2xxx how much would they be kicking a and taking names now wowsas!" are more childish than "If Sonic was on SNES it'd be heaps better!" arguments.

Ditto speculative tech ones - "if the Wii had a 3 ghz triple core CPU and a 500gb hDD would the Wii U be out this year or would they be holding off til 2014?".

It's one thing to try to sensibly discuss real world events - and entriely another to try to rationally discuss make believe wishes and fantasies of one person.

Around the Network

The question is nonsense. What would have happened if Sony took another 3 billion USD loss? Because that is what your scenario really means.

The PS3 lost about 5 billion USD the way it went and they are still not in 2nd place. (If you rate the manufacturers only on market share). Ask yourself where the Wii or 360 (both are profitable products) would be if MS / Nintendo said "We do not need the profit, we go for market share!". MS could have donated 20 million Xbox 360s just for fun and Nintendo even more so.

And you need to realise that the reason the 360 sells / sold so well is the 360. Sounds simple, doesn't it? It sells so well, because people want it and not because, the PS3 is too expensive for them.



well if sony launched without CELL and BLU RAY.. they wouldn't have these legs

 

mM

The PS3 wouldn't be the lowest selling console.

When I made the next gen transition in 2008 I would've bought a PS3 if it had been cheaper than the X360 as I previously owned a PS1 and PS2. Oh well...



Join the new subreddit: www.reddit.com/r/VGChartz
DirtyP2002 said:

The question is nonsense. What would have happened if Sony took another 3 billion USD loss? Because that is what your scenario really means.

The PS3 lost about 5 billion USD the way it went and they are still not in 2nd place. (If you rate the manufacturers only on market share). Ask yourself where the Wii or 360 (both are profitable products) would be if MS / Nintendo said "We do not need the profit, we go for market share!". MS could have donated 20 million Xbox 360s just for fun and Nintendo even more so.

And you need to realise that the reason the 360 sells / sold so well is the 360. Sounds simple, doesn't it? It sells so well, because people want it and not because, the PS3 is too expensive for them.

If you had bothered to read the first paragraph of my OP you would see that I am discussing an entirely different architecture (lack of Cell) and what would have happened if that had been coupled with an earlier release.  Please read before you criticize.



Lord of Ratchet and Clank

Duke of Playstation Plus

Warden of Platformers

Around the Network
The original PS3 was I believe 800 dollars to make, so they were already heavily subsidized. Sony got arrogant and thought that the PS3 would be a runaway success like the PS2 and their plans backfired. That's why they thought they could price it as high as they pleased. If you look at history, 200-300 dollars is the sweetspot in console pricing for most people. Anything higher is most likely to fail. If the PS3 had launched cheaper they definitely would have built a bigger install base than 360 more quickly and most likely have won this gen.