Price didn't hurt the PS3. 20 GB PS3 was only $100 more expensive than 20 GB 360. And I'm pretty sure even then the $300 Core was selling a lot less than the $400 Premium since there isn't a whole lot you can do on live without a hard drive and live is a big selling point for the 360. And that doesn't include paying extra for a charging kit/rechargeables and live membership. Sony needs to develop a console that is easy to develop for and they can't let Microsoft get a year head start on them again. That's why the PS3 was lagging behind. If you don't make your console attractive to third-party developers, you're giving away the software advantage. PS2 was difficult to develop for (not as much as PS3 though) but Sony got away with their arrogance because 1) Sega was too tiny to compete, 2) Microsoft still had to get their foot in the door at the time. You can't build a brand over night. Especially when Sony had a year head start. and 3) Nintendo only had children and Nintendo fanboys (or at least people who love Nintendo IPs enough to not go without a Nintendo console) going for them at the time. Didn't get their groove back until they hit the jackpot with new gaming demographics (girls and women, middle-aged and senior adults, etc.)
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
