Dark Chaos said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
Rpruett said:
Squilliam said:
Whatever the PS3 sells, its sales will almost certainly be bad. 
Just because you've accepted that the PS3 will not be first, doesn't give anyone the right to actually say they are 'good'. Because every week the PS brand gets weaker and all the good work of the past is slowly getting unrolled by the PS3.
|
I don't see it that way at all. Regardless of how this generation ends up. (Whether PS3 takes 2nd or 3rd place), One thing is for sure. Sony is not out of this game, not by a long shot. Nintendo has hung around for quite sometime. (N64/Gamecube) both of which were 'failures' under the same definition that the PS3 has been defined as one.
If anything, the game just got a lot more interesting. Microsoft has proven themselves capable after this generation (After the abortion that was the original Xbox). Nintendo has pulled out of the darkness of the past two generations of mediocre selling consoles.
The next generation will be even more interesting than this one currently. With three viable competitors and three brands that now have proven track records of success.
|
Sony was out of the game, they had to lose billions to get to the position they are in now where their console in only just reaching the edge of viability. Had they not been willing to lose so much money there wouldn't be much of a Playstation 3 left. Nintendo on the other hand never lost money on their console division, so if they could be considered relative failures thats fine but they were never absolute failures like the PS3 is now.
|
How many Billions did Microsoft lose on the original Xbox? How many Billions did it cost Microsoft to repair their RROD filled image? Would they be in the same position right now if they hadn't of done that? Doubtful. And are you counting Nintendo's handhelds into your factoring?
The PS3 is going to surpass Gamecube and original Xbox in terms of sales probably by the end of this year. (If that's an absolute failure)...What can I say. /rolleyes
Like I said, you could consider the PS3 a relative failure. Certainly not an absolute failure like Sega Saturn for example.
|
MS just entered the console business and entered late. Facing the monster PS2 it didnt do well but it never had any reputation, no game library. NOTHING.
PS3 on the other is a absolute failure.
So ur saying if MS suddenly lost their 80% OS market share to 20% and lost money that is not a failure?
OR
If Apple release $600 Nanos and lost money on them. Went from first to 20% that is not a failure??
|
Were not talking about Operating Systems or any other product but consoles. Every new generation brings a new set of circumstances. And the point is, Microsoft had to dump billions of dollars (Even in this generation) to maintain any form of momentum that they had. As a matter of fact both HD consoles had to. Sony is not a lone.
And if you want to classify failures as such :
Nintendo has been an absolute failure since the SNES if you count the numbers (And until the Wii). Sega was an absolute failure since the Genesis. Microsoft has been an absolute failure since the success of the Wii. (It still can't sell as well despite being cheaper).
Market share directly relates to having a competitive price. Which Sony has yet to have. Simply because they are cramming too much technology into one piece of equipment. Like i've said, we know that a PS3 within a 150$ dollars of the 360 sells better on a WW basis. Sony has more flexibility as it pertains to price than either Nintendo or Microsoft but their biggest limiting factor to more market share is price. Which has historically shown to be generally the biggest factor that drives sales.
Both the 360 and PS3 have been absolute 'failures' as you classify them. /shrug
