MARCUSDJACKSON said:
so ur saying Sony could have waited 1 or 2 yrs long then they already had to release PS3 and had a more succeeful laungch at a more reasonable price point and maybe even had the games you just mentiond as exclusive launch titles, and taking less of a loss on PS3, and PS2 would have still continued to sell like it was selling i guse while getting any game launched on Wii as multi plattform titles if not them staying exclusive to PS2. the diff between Wii and PS2 is motion controles. i think i agree with that. long story short is that ur saying Sony would have had more time to wait if there was no MS or 360, and Sony would still be on top taking a loss, but not as big as the one they where taking. specutation isn't an argument srry. |
No, I'm saying fewer 3rd parties would've bet on "HD" before the generation even started. I'm sure PS3 would've still seen some choice support and a lot of upfront commitments (stuff like MGS4, FFXIII, etc), but the advantages in support and technology that 360 laid the groundwork for wouldn't have been there, and that would've had devastating effects on PS3 overall given it's own market stumbles early on. It's not like PS3 would still have the same library it does now, only exclusive... a ton of the "HD games" more likely would've ended up on PS2, Wii, the handhelds or PC only instead.
PS3's first year also would've looked a lot more like 360's first year (ie: relatively empty with lots of upscaled PS2/Xbox ports). Without 360, I also doubt a lot of traditionally PC devs (Bioware, Infinity Ward, Bethesda, id, Epic, Valve, etc, etc) would've waded quite so far into the console space either.