makingmusic476 on 25 February 2008
| Grey Acumen said: first off, if the PS3 launched without BluRay, it might have been cheaper, but what would it have had to set itself apart from the 360 at all? Instead of it being "360 is cheaper and has more games and xbox LIVE" it would have been "360 is the same price and has more games and xbox LIVE" When it came to lack of games, this was more related to the Cell Processor, and the fact that 360 was paying for 3rd parties and had already established itself over the past year, than it had anything to do with the Blu Ray format. It STILL would have had PS2 offering the ability to play the whole PS2 library for only $100 as a major hurdle, and it still would have had the Wii with better looking motion controls stealing that thunder. Any sales that having Blu Ray might have held back are pretty much guaranteed to be gone now that the format war has been decided. so really, I just don't see how Blu Ray has cost PS3 the VG war. It's really 360's early launch, the Wii's popularity and the PS2's continued popularity that have done the most damage to the PS3. |
Well, if the ps3 didn't have Blu-Ray, it probably would've launched 6 months earlier, and many of the360's defacto exclusives (Lost Planet, Dead Rising, Saints Row, etc.) would've been multiplat. Third parties also wouldn't have been so quick to abandon the ps3 for the 360's larger install base. Because of this, the 360 wouldn't have had near as many more games than the ps3, so it would've been the failure prone Xbox (and at the time the Xbox name in general still was frowned upon by most gamers) versus the reliable PlayStation. The ps3 would've stomped the 360 in this scenario.
