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:

It's clear that price was the only point I made, but since I know I'm not getting anywhere, you're right, no need to waste my time further. 

You claimed that Sony problems came mainly from themselves. You clearly attempted to argue that the year headstart and the cost as the main points. Sony had no control on when and how MS launched. MS entering the console market, very likely, had an effect on the cost of the PS3. I argued both these points and yet you keep trying to bring up costs without adding anything of substance to the discussion. I'll just leave it at that. Have a good day.

I said I was done, but apparently, you really are having trouble. I will only attempt this one last time:

PS3's early problems mainly stem from...

- $600 price tag (main issue)

- Year behind (secondary, but a big issue)

- Lack  of software

- Poor (and bizarre) marketing

Only one of those was out of their power (and even then, it's to an extent). Microsoft put a beating on them, I've made this clear from the beginning, but wouldn't have done this without Sony's own hand in the pot. They were able to capitalize on crucial mistakes they put fourth, themselves, grabbing once exclusives and buyers scared off from the early price point(s). It also didn't help that Nintendo captured a large chunk of early consumers due to price (once again, and no matter how much you minimize it, this is the biggest issue they've faced all gen) and motion controls.

These days, they are correcting many of the issues, and despite all of those problems, they will still outsell the 360. I'm convinced had those 4 issues not been an problem, MS wouldn't have made anywhere close to the progress they did on Sony gen-over-gen.

Actually, I am fine. However from the tone of your posts... are you sure you are not the one having troubles?

1) price tag - I clearly stated how I believe MS's presence in the console market contributed to this. You just keep saying price and Sony set it. Why did Sony need to do this?

2) year head start - yea, we discussed this point. glad we agreed on this one.

3) lack of software - consoles always launch with a limited number of of titles. It didn't help that MS gained a lot of support from 3rd parties, and most of these games were available on both systems. MS had a hand in this due to support they gave 3rd parties as well as financial assistances.

4) Advertisement was fine. Although they may not have had as much as Xbox, there still were plenty of advertisements for the PS3. Lets not forget the brand name it carries.

I never said price didn't matter. I actually said it did; I didn't attempt to minimize it. I bought up a reason on why the PS3 had such a cost. A lot of this stuff is cause and effect. Very rarely does something just happen without anything to cause it. You think Sony just said oh, lets just throw everything into this system and sell it for $500/$600? MS's entry into the market had it's effect.

As for sales, good for PS3. I've said plenty of times, it is good to have all three of these companies successful for innovation and competition. Unlike many here, I do not care who gets first, second, or third. I hope to have all of them around in this business for a long time. I will say this again though; MS's success had a lot more to do with what they did right and were willing to do to get a foothold in the market. Tripling their previous user base and still growing.