System sellers are games people look at and say "wow I have to own the system now". Not games which shift a lot of units. Animal crossing sells extremely well but how many systems does it shift? In terms of main stream droves only gran turismo does that for sony. Their failed smash bros rip off is just further evidence of that.

Also, a company does not go from being number 1 by over 100 million units to dead last for pretty much the entire generation because of 1 single mistake. A lot went wrong. Blu-ray contributed to the high production cost but another thing was the cell. Sony had to drop backwards compatibility to cut down the cost of ps3.

Alright? And if they had sold it for 25¢, it would probably have sold over 100 billion, but that's obviously not real.

I'm not sure about that. Kinect is a good idea, but they brought it to the market too early (well, it was the perfect moment for the 360 to regain momentum, but not the perfect moment to introduce the tech itself to garner sustainable traction). Maybe a much more matured Kinect 2.0 can regain the lost trust in the tech, if they deliver on all the initial promises + some this time around.

whats your point by this reply, i was arguing why the ps3 did not dominate this gen, they could have priced the ps3 right they made a huge mistake, they still recovered and could dominate next gen.

how many system sellers are there now adays, gran turismo, mario and halo, GTA, MGS and final fantasy,  every big franshise is on 360 and ps3, what exactly are talking about, can you please name these system sellers.

Right, they could have priced it right at 800€/$ to make a profit on the console. Also as people were pointing out, it launched at 499$.

Their huge mistake was what they put in the PS3, not where they priced it. Because if they had priced the PS3 as it was at $299-399, Sony would have lost so much money in the first few years of the gen, they probably would have been forced to close down their gaming division. You can't just cut the cost of something in half without consequence. If Sony could have realistically sold the PS3 at $300 at launch, they would have.

Now, if you allow for Sony to have changed the PS3 in order to launch at $399, you would get a much different PS3 from the one we got, and then it's pretty difficult to predict what would have happened, even with the benefit of hindsight. How would the PS3 have sold if it was as powerful or less powerful than the 360? How would it have sold without Blu-Ray functionality? How would the Blu-Ray market have been affected? What if, due to the exclusion of Blu-Ray compatibility in the PS3, HD-DVD had won the format war? Wouldn't that have negatively affected Sony in the long run, as well? We don't know.

Could've, should've, would've... we don't know what would have happened. These "what ifs" are pointless. What matters going forward is how Sony can learn from the past and not repeat it. Sony's board of directors are definitely not huddled together in a board room right now saying, "Man, if only we had launched the PS3 at $399 instead of $599, we wouldn't be in this mess."

The Vita proves that Sony doesn't learn from the past.

It think MS and Nintendo will rule the "next gen". Sony and the Playstation brand will be history in 2 years.

If that is true, then it will be one of the most dramatic downfalls of any company I've ever known. Sony was on top of the world 10 years ago.

I don't think the Playstation will die so easily, but Sony is in a precarious position that I admit I don't know much about. I hope they make it out of their trouble. I hope the Vita picks up for them. I'd much rather see Sony stick around and Microsoft back out.

 I already said they could have launched a system exactly like a 360 and could have dominated. my point is as long as they make a system 6-8x more powerful then current gen and price it at 349$-399$ they will dominate next gen, just look at the weekly charts, it sold 3x the amount wii u did this week.