PS3 performing better than PS1?!

[jesus kung fu magic]

MikeB said:

RolStoppable said:

MikeB said:
@ RolStoppable

There's nothing dubious about investing massively into a platform. It's probably financially interesting to Sony from the grand perspective as a consumer electronics company from a long term and wider perspective.

My point is that the PS1 would have sold much, much more in the same timeframe if Sony had been willing to lose $5 billion on it. Or the other way around, the PS3 would have sold much less if Sony intended to keep it as profitable as the PS1.

The PS3 benefited from an enormous advantage compared to the PS1 (this isn't even including brand awareness), yet it still only performed about on par in the same timeframe. So why should this be seen as an achievement of the PS3?

Of course, but the goals with the PS3 are very different than the goals back then. The PS1 did nothing to really advance consumer electronics. The PS3 does more so than the PS2 as well.

I already recognized Sony would most likely invest huge amounts in the PS3 for the short run (we don't need another 3DO or Atari Lynx, which were techincally excellent but were failures commercially). Sony has the resources and talent to make gaming consoles even more ambitious than those succeed.

"Goals"?

The name of the game mike is to make money......businesses could give a damn if they try to advance consumer electronics if it gets in the way of making a buck.

In the ps3's case they thought that consumers would go to them because of their brand and their specs.....in the process however their brand faltered and it became apparent that their machine was just a little powerful if not equal to the 360.