PS3 falling bad?

[binary solo]

Hang about! If the peak sales year for a console is year 3, which is this year for the PS3, and is partly the basis for claims that the PS3 is heading for an epic fail. Then last year should have been 360's peak year. But this year (year 4) looks like it will be a better year for 360 than it's year 3 (which 360 fans are wont to repeatedly point out in any sales discussions).

So 360, in leading the way is showing that year 4 can be the best year for a console - uless you think it is going to have a dismal second half and all the recent gains will disappear. Therefore is it not reasonable to expect PS3 to have it's best year in year 4? Year 4 is slated for some highly anticipated games, and the inevitable price drop (if not some time this year). As long as year 3 is a reasonable hold out year then there isn't too much to worry about at this point. Lets come back to this thread at E3 2010 and look at how PS3 is doing in year 4 post launch and see if the PS3 doom merchants are right. As of now it is too early to kill off the PS3, no matter how much you desperately want it to die.

PS3 is staying in touch with the 360. While it's disingenous to keep claiming the 360 is 1/2 price, the oft quoted figure is $275. This makes the "average" 360 sales price $124 (or 31%)cheaper. That is a significant price difference. If consumer perception is that PS3 and 360 are much of a muchness when it comes to games and there is almost certainly not the level of slavish system loyalty as is prevalent on this site then the price difference is certainly a purchasing choice factor.

On the one hand the doom merchants say PS3 price has nothing to do with the epicness of its failure, rather it is the lack of games (are you serious??), and crappy online service (valid point early in it's life, but now??) that are the reason. Yet on the other hand they are saying that Sony's extreme arrogance at having such an expensive console and expecting people to buy it "because it's PS" is the reason for the epicness of its failure. Which one is it: price is irrelevant, or price is relevant? You can't have it both ways.

If you're saying price was relevant at the start but it is no longer a valid excuse, well when did price stop becoming a factor? Seems price difference wasn't a factor when PS3 had fewer games, and less developed on-line service, but a smaller price difference with the 360, because the PS3 was hauling in the 360's lead through much of 2008. Now PS3 has more (good) games than previously, and online service is better (and continuing to improve), but the price difference with the 360 is greater than previously. Looks to me like the most significant change from this time last year to now is price difference. There is every reason to expect that a narrowing of the price difference will lead to PS3 sales overtaking 360 sales week to week, unless 360 aims to maintain that 31% average sale price difference. That means at a $299 PS3 the 360 will need to have an average sales price of about $205. Is that achievable? I don't know.