Cell cost $90 or so in 2006. The most expensive stuff was Blu-ray, around $200 in 2006.

One thing for certain is that this gen would have been radically different. A $400 ps3  with blu ray released 1 year earlier would have been siginificantly weaker than the 360, considering how expencive blu-ray tech was in 2006, let alone the year prior.

The 360 would end up being the only console able to run hd games.

Most third party games would have been made subhd to be ported between all three consoles, which could have made the wii much more successful.

360 exclusives would have looked ridiculously better than anything on the ps3, especially later on, which would have helped the 360.

Playstation obviously starting at a reasonable price would have greatly helped its initial sales, but not being able to have the better looking "hardcore exclusives" could have hurt it later on.

I think the ps3 would not still be selling well had it gone the underpowered route. Whether it would have made up the difference with more initial sales is hard to guess.

Blu ray players were over 1k in 2006, so I highly doubt blu ray was 200 bucks in 2006 or even 2007

The classic what if Sony did everything right scenario, 1. Sony would have lost more money and would probably be in more trouble if they launched at that price. But that's not what you want to hear, the reason you made this thread is so everyone could reassure and comfort you that Sony would have beaten Microsoft but alas this is the real world and that did not happen. What did happen was a massive profit and market share loss. /Thread

Sony didn't pay the same value for its PS3 BD drive as we pay for a devide. The price for industry is much lower than we pay, mainly because it is produced in a large number.

Your what if scenario is basically a what if sony hadnt screwed up their launch dream. Well, sony did, and it has cost them this gen. No point in coming in with what ifs and saying it would do better.

Honestly, if sony did what you are saying, My guess is the wii would just benefit from a lot more support. Ps3 may have sold more than the xbox, but not by as much as you are saying.

these type of dicussions are alright if its a feasible idea, but there is no way sony would have been able to release PS3 in 2005 for $400. Maybe if it excluded blu ray and went with a cheaper alternative to the cell

The Xbox 360 would have absolutely thrashed the PS3 in terms of performance.

My god read the OP I included the idea of ditching cell!  You guys can add to the discussion by saying how you think they could cut costs, but that's not really the point that I was trying to discuss.  However they would do it (cut bluray, cell, or BC) what if this scenario had happened?  I believe cell is the biggest thing that has held Sony back this gen and it will be again next gen as PS4 will have a hard time with BC because of it and PS3 will never get to the most mass market prices.

lol those threads are the best^^

what would have happened if sony would have had a total different console to what they have? how exactly should anyone know this? if they wouldn't have blu-ray and the cell and whatever they would have used totally different arguments for their console and with that, more, the same or even less people would have bought it.

you could be right or 50 million off (per console)