By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Capulous on 20 May 2013
Edit Thread
CGI-Quality said:
Capulous said:
CGI-Quality said:

I didn't say MS didn't do a lot of damage to Sony, they just did more to themselves. There's also little doubt they'd be dominating if they hadn't launched a year later with a $600 price tag - FAR worse than anything else the PS3 endured.

They launch a year later because MS decided to push for the next generation earlier. MS also offered a console which provided access to most third party games for a lower price. MS did a lot of things right for them to gain equal footing in the console market. Sony's $500/$600 price tags mattered, but the strategies MS employed were more damaging.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. A $400 launch PS3 would have probably left the 360 behind much, much sooner. Their own mistakes to the brand were costly enough to let MS capitalize the way they did in the first place. Without that year headstart, no matter the reason, they wouldn't have been able to court 3rd parties the way they did, and Sony may have kept many of the PS3's exclusive titles.

We will have to disagree. Sony could not afford a $400 PS3 at launch. Judging from the sales of most of their launch titles, there is no way they would have made anywhere near enough to cover the losses. They didn't even start making a profit on the system until well into the generation. That would be like someone saying a $200 launch Xbox 360 would have gave them an insurmountable lead. It is pure conjecture and has no basis. As, I said before, the year headstart was part of MS's strategy, Sony could not do anything about that.