CGI-Quality said:
Capulous said:
CGI-Quality said:
Capulous said:
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.
|
I didn't say they could afford a $400 PS3, but then, the reason they couldn't wasn't because of Microsoft. In fact, besides your last sentence, you reinforced my point.
|
Incorrect. I didn't reinforce any of your opinions; I just showed how hollow that if only argument you are using is. The 360 released earlier, at a lower price point. It is an equivalent system that has, lets say, 90% of the same games. This, along with many of the big name 3rd party games running better on the system. It also had a much better online infrastructure. It offered a whole new experience (online) to what the PS2 had. None of this was in Sony's control.
As you said before, we will just disagree. No point in pursuing this any longer as neither of us are going to convince the other.
|
You said the PS3 couldn't release @ $400. Of course, because Sony was behind the creation of it. Thus, it is THEIR fault. The year headstart may not have, necessarily, been a fault, no, but it helped MS establish themselves, and with that $600 price tag, sealed many of their early deals. Thus, you aided my point and didn't even realize it.
Without Sony's own hand in their issues with the PS3, it would have cleared the 360 much sooner. Yes, MS damaged them, never denied that, it just isn't to the degree that Sony hurt themselves.
|
You keep arguing price as if that is the only reason for everything that has happened. It is not. I have done nothing to aid that point, I just pointed out how hollow of an argument that is. Since you want to bring up the cost of the systems, lets bring up another possibility.
If MS was not around, PS3 would have been fine releasing at that price. They may not even have had to release the PS3 as it was. Why did Sony need to push tech onto the PS3? They feared MS and wanted an advantage on their console. Therefore MS forced their hand and it resulted in the problems the PS3 had when it was released. So, MS is the main reason that Sony had all these problems.
We can discuss this all day with different reasons and possibilities, but as I said it really won't make a difference.
